Samsung Losing Its Name and Integrity

Cook also made this comment:

“As we look to the future, it will be our decision going forward whether or not we keep the Samsung brand on our products or we decide to change it to something else.”

What alternative branding could they possibly go with that would be better than "Samsung" at this point? This is almost like saying "I might keep my country estate, or I might decide to live in my VW Microbus."

Sam sung.... or should it be Sam sang?

John,

I don't understand similar discussions in IPVM in regular intervals. Samsung/Hanwha is misleading or we are having such discussion to mislead the market?

Sorry, Initially I was with a good impression by viewing such discussions about Samsung security products or Hanwha security products, whatever , but slowly I feel these similar discussions at regular intervals like confusing IPVM users or security product market.

I would rather like IPVM to bring good discussions about different vendors, customers real problems with different manufacturer's products, where market will get benefit and manufacture's will bring good changes in their line-up based upon the issues found for customers benefit.

Every time I read remarks/discussions like this, including the subsequent discussion remarks by contributors, I am reminded of the following:

As to what Tyco has said versus what we have done, it has been 21 months since this acquisition. Certainly, all of you have had to change your strategies in the past 21 months, to meet changing business environments. -John Becker, Tyco Security Products - Video Portfolio

Yes the context is certainly different, but when you pay this kind of money you own the privilege of calling the tune, regardless of how misguided we all might think the decision is. Hanwha should get out in front and be making these remarks, and they should be forthright and honest, or just do what they will and make no comment what-so-ever; the later is also a bad idea.

My own Rep asked me recently why I have been so hesitant to embrace further dealings with Samsung. Reps have no voice in this, and they have to try and put Humpty Dumpty back together again daily, but an experienced observer could see this coming from a mile away.

The Cook interview in Securityinfowatch was absolutely a terrible decision. It makes him look like the Chet Wallaby of CCTV.

Here is more evidence of Samsung's contrary claims. Right after the acquisition, Security Products 'reported':

"[Tom Cook is] Adamant that this is a stock transition; not an acquisition."

Then Security Products congratulated itself on passing off this fallacy:

"(Sometimes it’s better to sit back and listen; I think you learn more.)"

But most of the time it is better to do research, find things out and understand how business works.

Either way, Samsung Hanwha Techwin has a huge problem to face now but they have made it worse with the approach they have taken.

Here's another tact: "It's ok, because we were never really Samsung to begin with!"

"Samsung Techwin, going back, was a separate public company doing $2.5 billion (in annual revenue). It had its’ own R&D, manufacturing and sales force. Even though we were under Samsung Holdings, Samsung Corporation, we didn’t get our optics from Samsung mobile company or Samsung consumer company, we were and are an independent company,” said Cook. “When Hanwha Group acquired us, all of that R&D, manufacturing and everything else came over. Samsung Techwin, now Hanwha Techwin, has 1,950 employees right now. This is our organization. We don’t share this with Samsung at all — we never did. I think people saw the Samsung brand and said, ‘Oh, they make a camera from the cellphone division and they share technology and all of that.’ We’ve never done that at all.” Tom Cook

They would have been better off just creating an "independent" subsidiary called simply "Techwin" and leave off the Hanwha name. (Just disclose somewhere in the fine print "a division of Hanwha"). But how likely could they have done that? Or was it a matter of misplaced pride for Hanwha to want to put their name so prominently on the product?

We work with Sams..... errr... Techw... errr.... Hanwha. It was pretty obvious from the start that there was a specified time period, after the Samsung divestiture, they'd be allowed to use the brand/name.

The strategy was to try and build the product & SI relationships during that transition period to the point that the "name on the box" wouldn't matter.

From the tone of the comments here, it does not appear the strategy was successful.