 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Saw that coming...it would be interesting to see the internal numbers - I have the perception that Volkl, Marker, etc. were pretty solid brands in Europe, K2 maybe not so much and maybe not so much in US either.
How much goodwill does a brand carry these days?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| ... How much goodwill does a brand carry these days? |
I'm not sure - ask a marketing person? I think with these, being "old" doesn't necessarily bring a lot.
K2's been over stretched across multiple sports for many years.
Ride was well marketed with UK riders a few years ago but isn't a major player in hard or soft stuff these days.
The snowboard market is dominated by cheaply made/ low tech/ well marketed near-beginner gear. Broadly people either buy big (Mervin, Burton), or one of the smaller players who brand up mostly identical stuff built in Chinese factories. So you have a choice of about three things in each category, although you do have full choice of the paint job and the logo they put on it. Although in that sort of market branding is likely key, it's going to cost a lot to rejuvenate old brands. I'm not sure how you'd value picking up a tired old brand versus starting afresh. I suppose in other fashion businesses people like Burberry etc did precisely that with considerable success. I'm not sure how much they paid for the brand to start with though, and those brands are aimed at a particular demographic; I'm not sure that will work in snow sports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Would be a shame to see brands like Full Tilt lost, if indeed that does happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@philwig, Aren't snow sports a rather particular demographic? 
I've no idea either. Until a couple of years ago I'd have bought a pair of Völkl skis on reputation only. Not any more.
The demise of Marmot would disappoint, if only because we bought some excellent pants a couple of seasons ago (still current tech specs) and I'll soon need a new shell. Broadly speaking "old" Arc'teryx quality at half the price. Actually, remarkably similar design to Mountain Hardwear of a good few years ago with some rough spots ironed out. The shell I have my beadies on also remarkably familiar...
That's not to say the same quality/fit/tech/value would be the same anyway in a couple of years, corporate shenanigans or not.
More of a comment on the culture of "growth by M&A ignoring the Engineer's Problem" than anything else isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
K2 did some amazing brand development a few years back. (Before Newell Brands bought them? I don't know.)
Their 'Luv' series was total breakthrough stuff - there was a time when every girl on snowHeads wanted to test the Burning Luv and many of those for whom it was too much luvin' ended up buying one of the other Luvs in its place.
The Seth Pistols too were real stand out skis in their day.
I can't say I'm really aware of any K2 models currently. (although that could well just be me not paying attention)
I think @under a new name is right with his last line - inevitably a key element of M+A mentality is about "Exploiting business synergies": buy up 3 or 4 disparate brands and save costs by having them share us much infrastructure as possible - hello creeping homogenisation!
I think this is where some of the niche brands have managed to maintain their angle.
Our 'homies', Whitedot are a good example - they've held their nerve and kept making skis that stand out in the rack.
Perhaps not all these 'old' brands will survive and it'll leave space for new growth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| ..Aren't snow sports a rather particular demographic? |
Indeed, but perhaps a different one. There were ski brands (Lacroix comes to mind) which may appeal to the same demographic, but most are aiming somewhere else, I'd say.
Völkl: well yes. But the "outdoor" business has had brand over substance for a long time - TNF or Nike being a couple of examples. Perhaps getting excited about brands is a young persons' game.
More of a comment on the culture of "growth by M&A ignoring the Engineer's Problem" than anything else isn't it?
I don't know that quote (reference?). I am an engineer though, but M&A is not something I'm at all hostile to - it's a way to manage some types of risk and ultimately to go liquid. As per other comment, I think tired old companies buying tired old brands is part of the process of creating space for the new kids.
It's a relatively low tech business, and the investment is probably almost all marketing rather than anything else. You can see that in the "british" snowboard brands which come and go - they have nothing other than a graphic designer and ... bang, there's a business. Well sort of.
The niche thing perhaps reflects the sport's make up. Most people don't need / can't use race gear, so Kessler doesn't get bought out by Nike, hence the niche can continue to exist? There's not a huge amount of technical change and nothing at all disruptive. The last biggest thing was a decade ago (reverse camber)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whitedot are an example of how to grow a brand in a specific segment on a peer to peer recommendation basis with a really solid product behind it.
The big brands don't have that luxury and it's hard for a seasonal discretionary and infrequent purchase in an overcrowded niche market to look good next to a product line sold in every Walmart in the world when it comes to the numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@philwig, am on phone so will amplify in the AM.
Look at Decathlon/Quechua as an apparently (I haven't looked at financials) successful sports brand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| philwig wrote: |
| under a new name wrote: |
| ..Aren't snow sports a rather particular demographic? |
Indeed, but perhaps a different one. There were ski brands (Lacroix comes to mind) which may appeal to the same demographic, but most are aiming somewhere else, I'd say.
Völkl: well yes. But the "outdoor" business has had brand over substance for a long time - TNF or Nike being a couple of examples. Perhaps getting excited about brands is a young persons' game.
. |
The number of fortysomething dads I see in Superdry hoodies and tees suggests to me that brands can still hit if they get their positioning right. The ski world has too many brands and only supergeeks really care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@philwig, Hmmm, I can't find a reference to it on any of the first G pages I searched but I am quite sure that at some point I came across "The Engineer's Problem" (maybe it's called something else?).
It's more or less that there is a human failing to assume that if you are good at one thing (e.g. engineering or making and selling rubber gloves) you are therefore good at all similar things (e.g. finance or making and selling winter sports equipment). It's not specifically aimed at engineers but I think it's roots are in the typical promotion often of engineers into management.
Which, coupled with an excess of M&A (which is not, in and of itself an evil) leads to companies getting themselves somewhat in trouble by buying businesses that they really do not understand (Thomson Corporation with its acquisition of Primark comes to mind. although that's a fairly obscure example).
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
Thomson Corporation with its acquisition of Primark comes to mind. although that's a fairly obscure example
|
M&A goes wrong if you don't understand what you're buying eg HP and Autonomy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Gordyjh, well, exactly! A rather better known example!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Gordyjh wrote: |
| ... M&A goes wrong if you don't understand what you're buying eg HP and Autonomy! |
I'd say that one did not go wrong in the slightest
The Chrysler deal is another amusing example of senior management stupidity.
--
Companies with apparently negative value in some cases still make good investments. It is perhaps be an "engineers' mistake" to relate the actual value to the market value. Technical knowledge is not sufficient, but so long as you know what it can and can't do it's a useful edge. Other mistakes are common.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@philwig, please don't think I am singling out engineers, everyone can be guilty of such a mistake...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
The latest I've just read in a trade angling publication is that all the ski brands are being disposed of
"As expected, the Outdoor Solutions division bore the brunt with its winter sports brands all being deemed surplus to requirements.
The sales processes are under way and the company hopes to complete the process within the first half of 2017"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
When you see stuff like this why would anyone want to be fighting to maintain market share in a shrinking market? 
http://www.tourism-review.com/winter-season-much-shorter-in-switzerland-news5140
| Quote: |
A recent study revealed that the duration of snow covering Switzerland declined significantly in recent decades. The main reason for shorter winter season is late snowfall and earlier snow melting in the spring.
On average, the snow season today begins 12 days later and ends 25 days earlier than in 1970. This was published in a study by the University of Neuchatel and WSL Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research. The decrease in snow cover was twice as big in the spring as in the autumn, according to the research team. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
