Getting In Deep Trouble; Why Companies Get There, and What it Takes To Recover

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

It doesn’t matter if you’re a retailer, distributor or manufacturer. It doesn’t even matter if you’re in the snowboard business. In every industry, companies get in trouble for the same basic reasons, and require the same things to recover

All businesses in trouble share two characteristics: denial and perseverance in the face of inescapable change. It’s easy to believe in what worked in the past, and hard to step outside our comfort zone and do things differently.
Businesses suffer from information overload, just as individuals do. Big surprise since businesses are made up of people. When companies get into trouble, day-to-day management of immediate crises (like finding enough cash for payroll) consume managers. Their ability to identify opportunities and problem solutions decline because they can’t see past the next phone call from an irate creditor or reluctant supplier. Pretty soon, they’re paralyzed by action. Managers and staff alike are frantic, but nobody addresses the fundamental changes that get companies in trouble in the first place.
A business owner once looked me straight in the eye as he told me that he had to sell his product for under what it cost to produce it. Why? Because that’s what his competition was doing, he said. Denial and perseverance. The fact that he was liquidating his net worth a little at a time and working for less than he could have made at McDonalds wasn’t really something he’d focused on.
The owner of a business can’t afford to shut out critical information just because there doesn’t seem to be time to consider its significance. Ignorance can kill.
Like the frog that won’t hop out of water if the temperature is raised slowly to boiling, many companies seem all too willing to cook rather than change with the business environment.
There are a lot of reasons businesses boil rather than hop out. The five most common ones that I’ve seen in my work with troubled companies include:
Failure to answer the question “What’s the Goal?”
Seems like a simple question, right? What are your goals for your business? Can you measure them? By when do you want to achieve them?
Think about it. How do you know if you’re succeeding if you don’t have tools to measure success and keep you focused on where you want to go? Most businesses that get into trouble have never answered this question and companies jumping into the snowboard business today are often prime example.
Business goals are measurable and realistic. They can always be quantified; an increase in sales, gross profit percentage or dollar sales per employee. Don’t be constrained by traditional measures. If it meets the criteria, works for your business, and keeps you focused, it can be a goal.
Failure to respond to a change in the market
Does anybody doubt that IBM could have dominated the PC market if they had decided to do it early enough? Bill Gates offered them a chance to buy the rights to MS-DOS and they turned him down. Oops.
It’s easy to keep doing what has worked for you in the past. Everybody likes to stay in their comfort zone. A dramatic change in the way your business operates involves perceived risk and is inevitably disruptive and messy. Building an organization that is receptive to change, so that change is ongoing and incremental instead of chaotic, is a critical ingredient of business success.
A character flaw in the owner/chief executive
No, we’re not talking a crook or a psychopath. Like all of us, business executives have strengths and weaknesses. The strengths that allowed Steve Jobs to establish and build Apple Computer became, in the judgment of some, liabilities when it was time to manage the larger, corporate organization that Apple became.
Perhaps individuals who establish and build companies come to believe in and depend on themselves too much. They are often right to think that they can do anything in the organization better than anybody else. Trouble is, they can only do one thing at a time, and this hands-on-everything approach creates a bottleneck at their door and discourages other employees from taking the initiative to solve problems.
Inadequate control systems
“Inadequate Accounting System Scuttles Company” isn’t the kind of headline that boosts circulation, but it should be obvious that you can’t run a business without current, accurate information.
A company I was hired to turn around was operating two businesses on one accounting system. “Nothing wrong with that!” you say. True enough, unless you use one data base for both companies. You credit one business and debit the other. At the end of the month, the books balance, but the numbers are meaningless.
As a result, monumental adjustments were required to create good, meaningful data and they were months behind in doing it. The owner, by the way, was a CPA. Before I ever got there, he’d invested close to $1 million in the venture and ended up losing most of it. Go figure.
Growing too fast
Remember the business cycle; especially in a highly seasonal business like snowboarding. You have to invest money (for salaries, advertising, inventory, whatever) before you can sell anything. The more you sell, the more money you have to invest to keep the business running. It’s called working capital. Profit is an accounting concept. Nobody ever pays their bills with profit. Companies run on cash. If you grow faster than your financial capabilities allow, you can be profitable, but still broke.
If your business is growing (even if it’s not, but especially if it is), do a simple cash projection. It can be as easy as beginning cash balance, plus sources of cash during the month, less itemized expenses for the month, equal cash balance at the end of the month. That number becomes the starting place for the next month. Make it as simple or as complex as you like; whatever works for you.
You know two things for sure about a cash projection. First, that it’s never right. Hey, it’s a projection! Second, that the more you use it, the more valuable it becomes. It’s your money. You must understand the financial dynamics of your business no matter how much you’d like to leave it to your accountant.
Find some quiet time to evaluate your business with regards to these five issues. Better still, have an objective third party whose business acumen you trust evaluate them with you. However hard it is to correct any deficiencies you discover, it’s easier to do now than after the business is in decline.
 
Company Already In Trouble?
What Does it Take To Climb Out?
 
·         A viable business
Evaluate your competitive position. Why are customers going to buy your product instead of somebody else’s? If you don’t have a good answer, ask yourself if the risk you’re taking is worth the potential return.
·         Bridge capital
There’s always a shortage of capital, though it’s typically a symptom rather than a cause of the company’s problems. There has to be cash from some source to keep the business going while the problems are fixed.
·         Management
Managing a turnaround requires a different set of skills than managing a healthy company. Often the individuals who were at the helm as the business declined are the wrong ones to rebuilt it, if only because their credibility and confidence is poor.
·         A little time
If creditors have judgments and are attaching bank accounts, the bank has called the loan, and the IRS is padlocking the place for failure to pay withholding taxes, an organized liquidation or bankruptcy filing may be your only choice. Positive changes take time to have an impact. Options decline with circumstances.
·         A plan
You have to convince yourself, your employees, customers, suppliers banker and other stakeholders that you can recover.

 

 

Don’t Worry, Be Happy, Part II; Skateboarding will Survive a Slowdown

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It was three or four months ago that I stopped getting the nearly weekly calls and emails from somebody who wanted to open a new skate shop. As weeks dragged on without the sound of enthusiastic voices eager to make their mark in skateboard retailing I wondered if that wasn’t a sign of a market top.

 
Now, as you all mostly know, sales are a bit soft. As usual, there’s not a heck of a lot of hard data, but it feels like the luckiest ones are just seeing slow growth (single digit) while the less fortunate are down from last year. Various youth oriented retailers (Hot Topic, Gadzooks, Children’s Place Retail) have reported some weaker than expected results. Vans reported that their comparable retail store sales for the quarter ended May 31 declined 7.4% from the same quarter the previous year.
 
Recent government economic statistics have confirmed what we who have to deal with reality already knew- the recession last year was a little worse than advertised. There’s some talk now that we could have a double dip recession. After the decade of prosperity it wouldn’t surprise me if we had a bit more of a counter trend.
 
Screw all that. Anybody in the skate industry who truly thought skateboarding was going to grow like a well-fertilized weed forever was not in touch with reality, to use the polite term. But our demographics are still favorable, the major brands haven’t screwed up their distribution, skate parks are popping up like mushrooms, and skating seems to be gone mainstream without, so far, losing its coolness. The people selling skate apparel to the lifestyle crowd should be sending royalty checks to the skate hard goods companies.
 
So maybe we aren’t quite gushing cash like we were. Maybe we don’t need to make skateboards 24/7 right now. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a good business, enjoy the industry and make some bucks.
 
A Lesson From the Ski Business
 
Yesterday I talked to a ski industry veteran who told me about brand name shaped skis on sale for $49 and $59 a pair. Shaped skis are the skis that pretty much took over the market a few years ago. Being easier to learn on and turn, I’m told, they relegated most straight skis to the dump. If they’re so hot, how come they’re selling for less than cost at retail? For less than a complete skateboard, come to think of it.
 
Oh, for the usual reasons. Desperation to stay alive. Willingness to exploit a formerly hot brand. Lack of product differentiation. Fighting for market share rather than focus on brand positioning. 
 
As an industry, skateboarding isn’t and won’t be immune to these kinds of shenanigans. The best thing we have going for us is that the major hard goods companies know they have to control their distribution or they’re screwed. Unlike skiing, or snowboarding for that matter, the skate companies seem to know it and are actually acting on it. In its heart of hearts, each core skate company seems to know that if one of its competitors tries to blow open its distribution, it will clobber that brand, not leave the others in the dust. The snow/ski companies knew the dangers of pushing distribution too hard, but couldn’t resist the urge to fight for market share by expanding that distribution. That’s why there are $49 shaped skis and the Vision snowboards are right next to the Burtons in Garts.
 
How can we avoid this fate?
 
Being a Successful Retailer
 
Well, apparently you read Skate Biz. Every issue, Skate Biz highlights one or more skate shops that have been successful. Get all your back issues (you do keep them in a safe and secure place don’t you?) and open them to the pages talking about these shops. Read the articles on the shops from each issue. Now make a short list of what pretty much all these shops do. In no particular order, your list will look something like this.
 
  1. They’ve all been around a while
  2. The owner is actively involved in management and is in touch with the customers.
  3. They have some kind of budget and cash flow awareness. They watch inventory and expenses.
  4. They can tell you, in a general sense, who their customers are. There is customer loyalty.
  5. They are involved with the community and the sport.
 
You’ll note that these five points don’t just apply to skate retailers, which is fine as most shops sell something besides skate.   
 
There’s one more thing I think more and more of them should be doing. Rather than running ads and doing various other kinds of non-focused advertising, they should be using email and the internet to not just reach their customers, but to have a relationship with them. I didn’t say sell on line. But most skate shop customers are email and internet users I suspect, and that’s a huge opportunity to reach exactly the right people with information they actually want at a low cost.
 
“Good” Competitors
 
I was afraid this article was going to end up as another boring discussion of things to do when business is a little soft. You know- control expenses and inventory, protect your brand, stay focused on your core customer, and stuff like that. Each business needs to do those tactical things.    But instead, let’s talk a little more strategically about something I’ve touched on from time to time- industry structure and what makes good competitors.
 
We all know that the core skate companies do and have done a lot to grow and promote skateboarding. It’s almost an article of faith that that’s a good thing, and it is. What does it really mean though?
 
It means, up to this point at least, we’ve had a group of largely “good” competitors. Though they were for sure competing with each other, they largely did it in a way that’s been good for the industry.
 
They have stayed committed to the technology that goes into making skateboards, trucks, wheels and bearings. By legitimizing this technology, entry barriers have been created by defining what a skateboard is and is not. They have made it difficult for new brands and products, even from much larger companies, to come into the market and succeed.
       
They have shared the cost of developing the market. There is no single dominant company in this industry that could have done it alone. Their common focus and direction is, in a word, remarkable. As a result, they’ve increased industry demand to the benefit of all.
 
Generally, they’ve been pretty risk averse. They haven’t gone out looking for growth and market share at all cost. They have been very conservative in adopting any new technologies. Mostly, they haven’t tried to expand outside of skateboarding and they’ve been cautious about their distribution. In fact, it’s tough for new entrants to gain access to distribution channels. Being risk adverse means they haven’t had to react to each other in ways that are detrimental to industry structure.
 
Because the companies have been risk averse, the consumer’s risk when buying a skate product has been reduced. Basically, the products are pretty much the same and work pretty well. Maybe more importantly, no skater ever has to risk being laughed at by his friends because he bought “the wrong” product. He can always find something that functions well that meets the social requirements of his circle of friends.
 
To put it simply, the strategy of the leading brands helps to perpetuate industry structure. How did it happen that everybody has been so cooperative? I don’t exactly know. I guess I could speculate that it has to do with the fact that most of the company principals grew up in skating, know each other well and share a common perspective on the industry. It’s also because they’ve got a good thing going and because the industry is pretty small. Maybe this is one of those times when “why?” doesn’t matter. It exists and it’s great.
 
But, while we’re still a small industry we’re not quite so small anymore. Or at least we’re not quite so unnoticed. The customer base has expanded and maybe isn’t composed of mostly “core” skaters in quite the way it use to be. People with less interest in keeping things the same are becoming involved in skating. Skate brands and companies will, I believe, find their way into the hands of organizations with less perceived interest in being “good” competitors. 
 
As I’ve discussed in my last article, there may be some pressures emerging that will make it tough for the skateboarding industry to continue along as it has. At the same time, I’ve never known an industry where the interests of all the leading companies were so aligned and consistently pursued for the ultimate benefit of the industry. Maybe they’ll surprise me and keep doing it.

 

 

Changes in the Skateboard Competitive Environment. Time to Run Your Business Differently?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It’s interesting how a handful of events and business trends seem to be converging in skateboarding at this time. They have, I think, the potential to change the industry and how it does business. The consumers, as always, will get what they want. For some companies- usually those willing to take a risk and do something a little different- this will represent an opportunity. For others, it won’t.

 
Let’s look at these trends and speculate a little on how companies might be impacted and how they might take advantage of them.
 
The Trends
 
I don’t claim to know which of these is or will be most important so don’t conclude anything from the order in which I list them. More interesting than individual trends may be the way they interact. One plus one plus one plus one plus one may be more than five. It may also be three Or at least result in some surprises.
 
First is Chinese (or where ever is cheap) production. I wrote a whole article on that last issue, so ‘nuff said.
 
Second is the apparent slowing in the rate of growth of skateboarding. Look, some slowing was inevitable. If skateboarding kept growing at recent rates, soon everybody person on the planet would be on a skateboard and we’d be trying to sell to people (or whatever) on the third planet in the system of the star at the end of Orion’s Belt. Imagine a vert contest on a low gravity planet. “Dude, I’m going to go have lunch while we wait for him to come down.” Kind of boring.
 
Anyway, the third trend is the increasing willingness of kids to buy blanks and shop decks to save money. No surprise there. It’s not like that’s new. I don’t see it slowing down.
 
Number four on the hit parade is the decision on the part of certain brands to include new materials in their decks. It’s been tried before and hasn’t really taken hold. But what if it does?
 
Finally, like really baggy jeans and baseless snowboard bindings, the habit of changing shapes on skateboards every twenty minutes has run its course, at least for now.
 
A Lesson From Snowboarding
 
Seems like every four article or so, there’s a section with this title. Before snowboarding became run by a bunch of ski companies, back when it was as hot as skateboarding is now, I always looked forward to going to the SIA trade show in Vegas and seeing the latest “new” snowboard. One year it was the articulating snowboard. The next I was the dual camber snowboard. One especially memorable year it was the honeycomb snowboard. That’s my all time favorite because somebody flexed it and it broke in half. A gut splitter for me- not so funny to the guy trying to sell them.
 
Anyway, did any of these technologies actually work? Who the hell knows? It didn’t matter because they were never adopted by any of the leading snowboard brands. So they weren’t legitimized in the minds of snowboarders. So they died. Snowboarders knew what a snowboard was and these things weren’t it no matter how good they might or might not have been.
 
Skateboarders have always known that a skateboard is made of Canadian maple and glue. Now Tum Yeto, Santa Cruz and Mervin Manufacturing all have skateboards with new materials in them. They claim they work better and/or last longer. Great. But now skaters are being asked to accept that a skateboard isn’t just Canadian maple and glue. It can be something else as well, and this something else can result in a better skating experience.
 
What else can it be? What other materials might be included? How about a complete composite deck if (when?) somebody figures out how to do that? Might different woods be okay with Kevlar or fiberglass reinforcing the deck? Like Chinese maple maybe.
 
Plots Within Plots Within Plots
 
Now things get strategically interesting and we can look at some of the other trends we identified earlier. Let’s say growth slows enough to leave us with some excess manufacturing capacity. The usual result, if you’re making a product that isn’t really different from what everybody else makes, is price competition. So maybe brands without factories start shopping for manufacturers who can offer a little better price, or terms, or something. The factories with brands go, “Oh shit.” They want to keep their factory working, so maybe they try new materials in certain of their decks. The skaters like it. The decks do, in fact, last longer. But of course any factory can eventually learn to make a deck with these materials. As skaters, being bombarded with pictures of their favorite team riders on these decks, accept them as legitimate skateboards, more are produced. But they last longer, so total deck sales decline. And competition keeps margins from moving up. So unless skateboarding continues to grow quickly, total gross margin dollars available to the industry decline.
 
Maybe the good news is that the factories with brands are smart enough not to make blanks and shop decks. And early on, the new material decks might even sell for a premium. Blank sales decline as longer lasting decks with Kevlar or fiberglass take hold.
 
But advertising is lauding the functionality of new materials. Intentionally or not, part of the message is “the wood isn’t as important as it use to be.” Some factory without brands, or some smart person, sees an opportunity. Soon blanks and shop decks with new materials are pouring out of their factory. Or they went over to China and, with wood not quite as important it was, are bringing in Chinese maple decks with Kevlar or fiberglass or whatever. The price is low- like half the price- and they now have a way to deflect the wood argument.
 
Back when everybody was experimenting with new skateboard shapes every month, bringing decks in from China was even tougher. With that phase apparently over, another barrier to entry has fallen.
 
At the end of the day, when there is little real product differentiation, product changes are fairly easy to copy, and there are no effective barriers to entry, the consumer tends to get a better product at a lower price.
 
Good for the consumer. Not so good for the industry. I don’t expect skateboarding to be threatened with the kind of near total collapses in interest it has experienced in the past. I won’t say never, but not in the foreseeable future. It’s just become too accepted and too much a part of the mainstream for too many kids.
 
Still, in the scenario I paint above you can see the pressure on the industry that could be created. Some of that pressure is inevitable and already starting. I don’t claim to know which pressures will be greatest and how they will interact with each other. I, or you for that matter, could probably imagine half a dozen other ways things could get tougher for the industry than they are now.
 
On the other hand, we could also imagine ways things could get better. Maybe skateboarding can continue to grow. Demographics are still favorable. Maybe most kids won’t want to pay more for a deck even if it lasts longer. I have no idea how a twelve-year-old skateboarder thinks. Speaking from the perspective of having a thirteen-year-old boy, it isn’t even clear that they do think regularly and clearly. He, of course, feels the same way about me I suspect.
 
What To Do
 
If skateboarding continues to grow, and kids want wood decks with pictures of their favorite riders, enjoy the ride. It’s not that you shouldn’t try and run your business better, but cash flow covers up a variety of shortcomings.
 
If, on the other hand, you think, as I do, that some of these trends, individually or as a group, will make the skateboarding industry tougher than it is right now what should you do?
 
First, when you hear people talking about what “the industry” should do, smile politely and nod your head. Then remember that every single company out there will do what it perceives to be in its own best interest. You’re going to scurry back to your company and do that I bet. It’s this dynamic that always leads to somebody trying to do some of the things I outline above.
 
At the recent surf industry conference at Cabo San Lucas, the surf companies were worrying about skateboarding and the new chain of Hollister surf stores. At the National Ski Areas Association convention in New Orleans (tough spring I’ve had) they were worried about retention of new snow sliders. I remember when snowboarding was worried about the buy/sell cycle. In each case, the industry seemed to hope that the industry, or their association would collectively fix the problem for them.
 
In all three of those circumstances, and in skateboarding’s current circumstances, the message is the same. Business is a risk. It is a risk whether you sit on your butt and do nothing or try some innovative approaches to a changing competitive environment. If you do nothing, competitors may walk right over you. Or maybe not. If you try some innovative, new things some of them will probably fail and some will probably work. But at least you will be leading the way and making people react to you. It’s a risk either way, but my experience is that the companies with the mindset to take some risks are usually the winners when competitive circumstances change quickly.
 
Create your plan and execute it. Focus on what you can do right, not the stuff that can go wrong that you can’t control anyway.
 
Don’t worry, be happy. After all, you could in an industry that’s a whole lot less fun than this one.

 

 

What To Do in a Recession? Hint: “Nothing” is the Wrong Answer

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I’m sure that everybody who was in the snowboard business during the 1990-91 recession liked that one better than we’re going to like this one. Assuming, of course, that you even noticed the one in 1990-91. Ah, those were the good old days- when suppliers and retailers could sell whatever decks they could manage to get their hands on at high prices and good margins and consumers were so grateful to get anything at all that they’d cheerfully pay what look today like impossible prices and barely complain if it fell apart after the second run.

Okay, perhaps I’m romanticizing it just a bit.
 
So let’s get back down to earth and take a look at this recession. I’m writing this at the end of October. It’s not officially a recession until we’ve had two quarters of negative gross domestic product growth, but I’m pretty certain we’re going to get there. This recession also has the potential to be a longer and deeper than the 1990-91 one. It looks like we may have the U. S., Japan and Europe in a recession at the same time. The last time that happened was in 973-75. That recession lasted sixteen months.
 
The good news, if you want to call it that, is that suppliers and retailers with solid competitive positions and strong balance sheets will be in a position to gain business. The bad news is that they are likely to gain it on the back of weaker companies that may not be around when the recession ends.
 
Snowboard suppliers have largely been through most of their consolidation and, as you probably recall, it wasn’t pretty. Retailers, on the other hand, have enjoyed high levels of retail sales growth, averaging 6.55% annually between 1994 and 2000 for the U. S. economy as a whole. But as every retailer who has ever complained when a supplier opened his competitor right down the street knows, there are a lot of retailers. My concern is that a decline in the growth of retail sales, or even falling sales, will be something weaker retailers may have difficulty surviving.
 
What are people doing about it? Are they concerned about the potential impact of an economic downturn on their businesses? I’ve talked to snowboard retailers and suppliers to see how they are working to cope with recessionary pressures.
 
A Little Perspective
 
This is the snowboard business (Don’t say you never learned anything from me). Suppliers ordered or started to make product last winter. Much of it (hopefully) had been shipped and received by retailers long before you read this, though of course there have been the usual delays and screwups on some product by most companies.
 
That’s practically a part of the industry’s tradition. If suppliers weren’t late on something and didn’t handle it badly with at least some of their retailers, often because they have to allocate scarce product, then those retailers wouldn’t get a chance to grind the suppliers for a bigger discount, better terms, or some free product and what would we do all in September and October?
 
Gregg Keeling, National Sales Manager for Salomon hard goods, says his product was eighty-five percent shipped by mid September. Dave Schmidt, Director of Sales and Vice President of Burton, says his number was 75% by the end of September.
 
The irresistible momentum of the industry business cycle means that a lot of business at the supplier level was already done before September 11th and before a recession looked certain. Well, there’s the minor matter of collecting the money, but let’s ignore that for the moment.
 
For retailers, the jury is obviously still out, though early signs look promising. A generally good snow season last year (unless you have the misfortune to live in the Northwest that is), coupled with growth in snowboarding and hard learned inventory control means that retailers seem generally optimistic, though praying for snow as usual.
 
If this was just the apparel business, or the surf business, or we had a major trade show now, there’d be a lot more public industry knowledge about general business conditions. In the apparel business, and to a lesser extent in the surf business, there are public companies. When public companies notice that their business has hit a rough spot, they have to put out a press release that says, in affect, “We’re screwed! This is why.”
 
There are few public companies in snowboarding, and those that are public don’t make most of their revenue from snowboarding. September’s ASR show, coming a week before the attack, gave the surf and skate industries a real chance to take their own pulse, and the word was that spring orders for soft goods especially were down substantially. This was consistent with what the public companies announced.
 
We’ll get a chance to take our pulse at the end of January in Vegas and in the selling season that follows. It’s then that we’ll really know what impact the recession may have on snowboarding.
 
In the Trenches
 
Jeff France, at Board of Missoula in Montana, says he saw the economic slowdown coming late last year. His part of the world suffered from a drought last year, with a result that he was left “a little heavy” on inventory when the season ended. That, and concern about the economy, led him to cut his preseason orders by twenty five percent for this season. His suppliers were “not real happy,” but understood the impact of drought. The larger suppliers, he said were content as long as they saw that their relative market share had stayed the same.
 
There are no resorts in his territory, which he characterized as a bit insulated from the national economy and “always in a recession” anyway. When he ordered, he was a little more price sensitive about really high-end board, but didn’t change his overall mix. He hasn’t had any calls from brands trying to get bigger orders, but he did get a little the other day from one snowboard company offering a five percent discount for early payment.
 
Maybe the consolidation isn’t over.
 
Jeff usually spends one percent of snowboard revenue on advertising during the season. He’s eliminated that completely. He’s comfortable doing that because of his shop’s market position. He says that, especially if they know anything about snowboarding, he’s really the only choice for his customers.
 
He’s got a defined market niche and has taken steps to safeguard and strengthen his balance sheet.
 
Adam Valedaserra is the snowboard buyer for Ski Market in the Boston area. They currently have twenty-five stores with a separate Underground snowboard department in most of them. They’ve been around a long while.
 
Business is good for Adam- up slightly from last year.
 
Overall, and not just in snowboarding, action sports seems stronger in the East and then in the West, which has caught some people by surprise. In snowboarding, the speculation is that people are still going to make it to the mountain, but they aren’t going to be as likely to get on a plane and come out West to do it.
 
Adam has kept his budgets a lot tighter. He’s not jumping so quickly into new opportunities. He’s watching his inventory a lot closer, and has made some alterations in his deliveries, delaying some and reducing the size of others just a bit. He’s seen some improvement in terms and discounts from suppliers.
 
Business is up, budgets and inventory are under control, and he’s getting some better deals. “All things considered, I’m pretty content,” he says. I guess so.
 
He’s got a defined market niche and has taken steps to safeguard and strengthen his balance sheet.
 
Dave Pascoe is the Manager of Boarderline in Bellevue, Washington. The store has been around for twenty-five years. He’s cancelled some late order, which he might have cancelled regardless of September 11th and general economic conditions. He’s also reordered some product. He characterizes deliveries as “pretty good” and has already reordered some product. His sales at the local consumer show were up twenty percent this year.
 
He got lots of good deal from various companies for the product he sold at that show. “I think this year is going to be good for that [good deals] too. If I can exercise some cancellation clauses, maybe I’ll just take half now and a month from now I can call up and it’s on sale at thirty off.”
 
His staffing promotional budgets remain the same.
 
He’s got a defined market niche and has taken steps to safeguard and strengthen his balance sheet.
 
The Supplier Side of the Story
 
GenX Sports sells a lot of snowboard product, know the distribution better than anybody, and have helped an awful lot of companies out of inventory quandaries, if I may put it tactfully.  You don’t much like them? Too bad. They have a big impact on the industry, help give the consumer what they want, and are going to be around.
 
Mark Brazier is the VP and Director of the Snowboard and Action Sports Divisions.   Their preseason orders were up slightly. After September 11th, they saw some initial calls to modify orders, but there were hardly any cancellations. They’ve already had some reorders. They haven’t changed their promotional and advertising budget in response to economic concerns.
 
However, they are not being as aggressive as they have been in the past about placing product in the market place. This goes to the heart of their relationship with their retail customers and how they compete. Mark estimates that they get eighty percent of their snowboard sales from thirty snowboard buyers. Those buyers, with whom they are in touch daily, generally see snowboard product as just another thing to sell “It’s SKUs to them,” says Mark.
 
GenX’s job is to know the snowboard market intimately and, to the extent possible, to make sure their customers have the right product at the right time. As things change over the season, it’s their job to make sure the retailer has the right product mix, in the right amounts, at the right prices. It’s a hell of a way to tie the customer to you as long as you don’t abuse the dependence. That’s where not being too aggressive in placing product comes in this year for GenX.
 
On the other side of the snowboard world, at Burton, Dave Schmidt says there’s an “Air of caution over our forecasting going into next season.” They saw a “blip” of cancellations following September 11th, but retailer confidence seems strong.
 
Burton has accelerated shipments to some big players so that Burton’s product would be on the floor. There have been no changes in their advertising and promotional budgets, and they haven’t modified their credit process as of this date. He reiterated their caution going into next year’s budget process.
 
Salomon’s Greg Keeling, just back from a tour of seventy-five shops, reports that sales on the East Coast are great, California is hurting, and Colorado is killing it because of the lift ticket price wars (Thanks resorts! Sure hope you don’t put yourselves out of business). That’s pretty consistent with what I heard from various other sources.
 
He saw the same sort of cancellation blip that Dave Schmidt at Burton saw after September 11th. Greg thinks people are going to reorder, and he’s helping them out with some incentives. There’s ten percent off standard wholesale (not on top of existing discounts), free freight, and payment on the reorders won’t be due until March 15.
 
Well, I guess by the time you read this it will be too late to cancel your orders and them make them reorders latter.
 
Salomon has reforecast down a bit for next year, but still have pretty aggressive growth plans. They have tightened their belt on credit, and didn’t ship some accounts. Greg says Salomon has a reputation of being the last to be paid, so he sees that as a positive thing.
 
It will be interesting to see how they reconcile their tighter credit policy with their aggressive growth plans.
 
So What?
 
Pay attention to your market niche and balance sheet. Expect soft goods to be hit harder than harder goods by an economic slowdown. Look for weak retailers and suppliers to disappear. Hope for a short recession, but plan for a longer one. You might want to check out the paper I wrote for SIA to see why I think that. Use Vegas and the weeks right after it to get a firm fix on the 2002-2003 season.
 
If you’re a supplier, watch your credit and collections closely. If you’re a retailer, work your suppliers for better terms and discounts.
 
Some things never change. Pray for snow and the continued growth of snowboarding- our best antidote for economic hard times.

 

 

“Hey! How Come You’re Still Around?” Conversations With Survivors

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

It’s old news, of course, that we’ve gotten to the point in this industry where probably north of eighty-five percent of the snowboards sold come from a handful of brands, mostly made by ski companies with the usual exception. And if that concentration is not how we’d like it to be, it’s how it almost always is. Don’t worry; I’m not going to give you the lecture on consolidation again- it’s too late to help anyway.

 But there are a number of small brands still out there when hundreds of others aren’t. How have they done it? Have they found the proverbial “defendable market niche?” Or did they just luck out and find an investor with too much money and not enough common sense? Or maybe, at different times, both.
 
So I’m going to call some of them up and ask something tactful like, “How come you’re still in business?” If they don’t hang up on me, maybe we’ll all learn something.
 
My Guess?
 
Okay, not completely a guess, as I’ve talked to most of these people before over the years and have watched them build their brands and companies. We’re going to find a high level of continuity in management, and a lot of support from shareholders. These are brands that have been around a while.
 
None of them ever thought they were going to be “the next Burton.” They were balance sheet aware, and never tried to grow faster than their financing allowed. They’ve generally figured out how to make money, and are bemused and perplexed when they hear about brands doing 30,000 snowboards and losing money. Advertising, promotion and team riders? It’s a good thing- as long as you can actually afford it. Having happy retailers who sell through at full margin, call for more product, and then can’t get it seems to be their approach to marketing. Oh, and, for some reason, they seem to only want to sell to people who can pay them on time.
 
They have generally discovered a market niche, and it’s typically high end. In one case, they’ve discovered that they aren’t only a snowboard company. Here they are in alphabetical order.
 
Glissade
 
“We’ve been making snowboards for seventeen years,” says Glissade founder and president Greg Pronko. “I think we might be the sixth oldest snowboard brand in the world.”
 
But Glissade no longer sees itself as strictly a snowboard brand competing only against other snowboard brands. They produce a relatively small volume of a few thousand very high-end boards, and don’t want too much volume. What they’ve learned to love is working with materials and figuring out how to use new ones. They have evolved to the point where they earn revenues from materials research and development, and rapid prototyping for other companies in snowboarding and other industries.
 
In spite of these other activities, the Glissade brand is the founder’s true love. But the love that goes into these custom, low-volume boards has a price. One of their decks will set you back a bit north of $500 at select retailers. For a little more, they’ll be happy to make you a custom board. Or you might call them and see if you can get on the list to get one of only twenty-five 195s they make each year.
 
So what have we got? Year around cash flow, a redefinition of their market niche that allows them to compete, no warranty problems, and a product that doesn’t require a big advertising and marketing campaign to check at retail. Oh- and good margins for Glissade and the retailer. 
 
Heelside
 
Heelside started as a boot company before expanding into bindings and, more recently, boards. They are heading into their seventh season. President Jim Ferguson emphasizes the continuity in investors and employees they’ve enjoyed since the company was founded. “Consistency of ownership and management has been key for us,” he says.
 
They have also enjoyed a few other advantages. Jim’s background in making boots went a long way towards getting Heelside started without some of the startup and growing pains that other companies have typically experienced. When they did decide to make boards (interestingly enough, at just about the peak of the consolidation), they purchased high quality equipment for not much money from a factory going out of business and hired the manufacturing team to make Heelside’s boards. Good for cash flow, and good for avoiding mistakes in learning the manufacturing process.
 
Growth is a good thing, but “The numbers have to make sense,” says Jim. “We’ve always lived within our means,” he emphasizes. “We do as much marketing as we can, but keep a close eye on the bottom line.”
 
Evidently Heelside isn’t sure how much being cool will help if you can’t pay your bills.
 
Of the up to 15,000 boards they expect to sell this year (depending on the snow) most will be sold in North America. One thing Heelside has in common with many of the other brands being discussed here is no dependence on the Japanese market for financing. I’m sure we all remember when Japanese prepayment for boards dried up, and one hundred plus brands vanished in short order.
 
Never Summer
 
They were profitable when they were only making 7,000 boards. That was the plan. Now, they’re making more, but maybe not as many as you might expect from a brand that’s been consistently pursuing its plan for ten years. They’re still making money. “Clean distribution, limited supply, unmatched customer service and exclusive territories for retailers,” is the foundation of their market position, explains co-founder Tracey Canaday.
 
The average wholesale price is higher than most brands, but Never Summer uses a layered, precured, pretensioned fiberglass that, according to Tracey, costs about three times as much as the glass in a traditionally made board. They also make their sidewalls out of sintered ptex. The result, according to Tracey, is a construction that makes the board more durable and responsive and gives the retailer something to sell.
 
Never Summer, located in Colorado, doesn’t sell a single snowboard in Japan. Zero, zip, nada, the big goose egg. So clearly when the Japanese market crashed, it didn’t hurt them much. Might even have helped their competitive position. Would they sell some boards there? Sure, but they haven’t been approached by the right potential partner and don’t want to be distracted from their retailer focus.
 
There’s little discounting at retail, and typically few Never Summers left over at the end of the year. Scarcity does much of the marketing for them. Want to buy a Never Summer? Better go find one now (October 3) and expect to pay full retail.
 
There are only four or five managers at the company, and two of them are owners. They are careful where they spend their dollars. For example, all new accounts are COD, no matter who they are. “This is our retirement,” says Tracey.
 
I’d be careful too.
 
Option
 
“We’re modest in our goals and live within our means,” says Option President Geoff Power. “We have really good people who don’t have stars in their eyes.”
 
Option was started in August of 1992. Geoff gives a lot of credit to the company’s investors, who have always taken the long term view, don’t need a return to live on, and have been willing to help the company over some rough spots or to take advantage of opportunities. One of those opportunities was the acquisition of the snowboard apparel company NFA at a time when lots of apparel companies were available for purchase. NFA has been able to grow and transition nicely in the direction of the street ware/lifestyle market. 
 
There was never a big dependence on Japan, so when that market cratered, it didn’t have as much impact on Option as on its competitors.
 
Option has done many of the same things as the other smaller, successful, brands mentioned in this article. They are careful with distribution. Their product cost is above the average but also, according to Option, better made. Customer service is critical. They like to be paid by the people they sell to, and control their marketing expenses consistent with their overall financial plan and capabilities.
 
It seems to be working.
 
Silence
 
One of these days, I have to remember to ask BK Norman, the lead dog at Silence, what BK stands for. Silence is nine years old. Their story is a bit different from the other brands mentioned above, but BK has been there for the whole ride. Continuity seems to be important.
 
When Silence was started, it had the good fortune to be owned by a guy who, in terms of his understanding of the snowboard business, had more money than sense. He had a whole lot of money. Like a real lot. He spent it on Silence. After all, snowboarding was hot. So they could build up the brand in a few years, go public and all retire rich. Seems like I’ve heard that story somewhere else before.
 
Never mind. Anyway, BK kept going “Uhhhhh, I’m not quite sure we can sell as many boards as you want,” but who was he to turn down all this marketing money? It’s just too much to ask a snowboard guy to do. The marketing money got spent. As BK had foretold, not as many boards as the inflated corporate plan required were sold. It was a financial mess, but the literally millions of dollars spent on advertising and promotion created brand awareness.
 
Silence has changed hands twice. The first time, it was sold to A Sports which also bought Avalanche. Now, a new investment group has picked up both Silence and Avalanche, and is working closely with BK, Dale Rehberg and Maureen ter Horst to run the brands the right way. “I always managed to find a new investor before things really cratered,” was the way BK put it. “A lot of money was wasted on huge corporate business plans that never came true. Now, we are concentrating on building our business on a grass roots level working closely with our retailers all over the world.
 
So now, well financed and with a realistic business plan, BK uses the brand awareness created in Silence’s early “drunken sailor” spending period to make some money.
 
The Japanese distribution has been kept intact over nine years. The distributor didn’t go bankrupt and the market was never over supplied. BK has stayed focused on building and selling snowboards. Most of the business is to specialty shops, but that is changing gradually. Because of the wider awareness the brand has and the presence of Avalanche, he can expand his distribution a bit more than some other smaller brands without damage. “We’ll keep Silence true to its history as a specialty shop brand and expand the distribution for Avalanche,” he says.
 
I Think I See a Pattern
 
These brands have quite a bit in common. Continuity in management would seem to be high on the list. Financial acumen with a balance sheet focus is up there too. Growth was kept consistent with their financial capabilities, and an awareness of whom their customers were. They focused on the bottom line, not the top. They tend to have their own factories. They spend a lot of time thinking about their distribution.
 
Anything there that should surprise us? Nah. Any small company that successfully competes against much larger brands has to have an answer to all those issues.

 

 

A Good Snow Year Does Not Make Us Heroes of Management; A Minor Reality Check

/0 Comments/in , , /by

1980- Michael Porter, the Harvard strategy Guru published Competitive Strategy.   In it, he discusses how industries change, and how companies have to change, as they transition from growth to maturity.

 I want to look briefly at what Porter says stereotypically happens during this transition and see how it applies to the winter resort business. Like all industries, this one has become insular- we talk to each other too much. Yet basically, we are experiencing the same trends that every other maturing industry faces. Maybe if we realize we aren’t different or immune, it will make it easier to respond to these inevitable and ongoing changes. Twenty years working with companies in transition has convinced me that the sooner you respond, the easier and more successful your transition will be. There must be something to what Porter writes, because I’ve found him relevant to every industry I’ve worked with.
 
He recognizes, of course, that maturity doesn’t happen at a fixed point in an industry’s development, and that it can be delayed. He also notes that rapid growth can return due to strategic breakthroughs, and that mature industries can therefore go through more than one transition to maturity.
 
Here are eight things he says happen during this transition.
 
  1. Slowing growth means more competition for market share.
  2. Firms in the industry increasingly are selling to experienced repeat buyers.
  3. Competition often shifts toward greater emphasis on cost and service.
  4. There is a topping-out problem in adding industry capacity and personnel. Thus companies’ orientations toward adding capacity and personnel must fundamentally shift and be disassociated from the euphoria of the past.
  5. Manufacturing, marketing, distribution, selling, and research methods are often undergoing change. The firm is faced with the need for either a fundamental reorientation of its functional policies or some strategic action that will make reorientation unnecessary.
  6. New products and applications are harder to come by.
  7. International competition increases.
  8. Industry profits often fall during the transition period, sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently.
 
Does any of this look familiar? Can we just for a moment see through the industry’s historical momentum and inbred myopia to recognize that this is us? I lived through it in the snowboard industry. I’ve watched it in computers, automobiles, and funeral homes. It’s happening right now in retail, telecommunications and, by the way, winter resorts.
 
The winter resort business is no different from any other industry in how it responds to maturity and consolidation. One good snow winter doesn’t change that.
 
At best, we’re growing slowly. Maybe demographics will change that. We’re sure as hell selling to more repeat buyers, and they mostly want to get more and spend less.
 
Cheap season passes are competition based on price no matter how you rationalize it. That’s not to say there aren’t valid business and competitive reasons for some resorts to utilize them. But hopefully, those reasons are consistent with a carefully thought out business plan- not just a response to needing to improve cash flow.
 
If you’re adding capacity and personnel and our industry growth rate doesn’t pickup, then the only way you succeed is by taking market share from other players. I’d say we’ve turned the corner as far as euphorically adding capacity and personnel goes. But competitive conditions, in the overall leisure as well as in the winter sports market, seems to require resorts to invest in new facilities and capabilities just to stay even with other resorts.
 
If you’re big enough and well enough capitalized to diversify into real estate, golf courses, conference centers, retail, theme parks or whatever then perhaps at some level it can be business as usual for you. If you’re strictly a winter resort and you make most of your money from lift tickets, then you are going to have to do business better than you’ve done it before. Tubing, snow skates, snow bikes and mini skis can all add some incremental revenue. But there’s not another snowboarding on the horizon. Like the man said, new products and applications are harder to come by unless you can change what you are.
 
What can you say about profitability when the before tax profit was only eight tenths of one percent (0.8%) in the 1999-00 season? That’s down from 5.8% the previous season (that season was six days longer). Leading short term government bond mutual funds have one year returns of eight to twelve percent with just a bit less risk.
 
If margins are lousy and competition extreme, it’s hard to justify investing in the winter sports business because of its seasonality and the financial implications of that.  On the one hand, you’d really like to operate the business with somebody else’s money, because you don’t want to tie up all year equity you really only need in the business for four or five months. On the other hand, lacking a good balance sheet and reserves for bad snow years, which I expect we all agree will continue to happen, nobody will lend you the money you need to get through the season, because they see it as an equity risk. And if they do lend it to you, and your margins and/or total revenue are too low, the interest expense will kill you.
 
You know from the number of resorts that have reported financial problems that this is a very real problem. On the other hand, there are a significant number of resorts that make money year after year. They are big and they are small and they are all over the continent. They are mostly privately held so you don’t hear much about them. Besides, a financial and management crisis is much more interesting than a low key, boring, resort that just goes along knowing who their customers are and meeting their needs in consistent and predictable, but changing, ways.
 
How do they do it?
 
In any industry I’ve ever seen, there are always a few who are in the right place at the right time. I’ve got nothing against luck, but it usually doesn’t last. What I expect you’ll find if you talk to the people running these resorts (or any manager of a company succeeding in a maturing industry) is that they mostly never heard of Michael Porter. They do know who their customers are and why they come to their resort. They know whom they compete against. They have good management information systems, and their finger is on the pulse of their cash flow. They have had to deal with most of the issues listed above, and continue to deal with them.
 
But not in a crisis mode. Not with the bank threatening to pull the line of credit and uncertainty about how they will make payroll next week. They were more or less open-minded and aware of the changes that were happening. They have responded, and continue to respond, over a period of years with changes in how they do business. For the most part, no single change represented, by itself, a life or death issue. But the cumulative impact was dramatic.
 
Paraphrasing Les Otten, “They didn’t have a problem- they had an opportunity.” It was an opportunity because they saw the need for change and dealt with it before it was paralyzingly threatening. They never had to step outside their box. They just extended it a little at a time.
 
Don’t feel comfortable because it snowed.

 

 

Questions That Retailers Should Always Have Answers To

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When I start writing these articles, I always have to remind myself who the audience is. The Skateboard Industry, of course and, based on the circulation of Skate Biz, skateboard retailers especially.

 
That’s where things get a little tougher, because what I know is that skateboard retailers don’t just sell skateboards and they don’t just sell to core skateboarders. With the mainstreaming of skateboarding, they are selling to the lifestyle crowd and making their money on the higher margins of shoes, soft goods and accessories. And they aren’t just selling skate hard and soft goods. Surf, or snow, or something else is probably part of the mix as well. So, what kind of retailer are they? What kind of retailer are you?
 
Hell, I don’t know. That use to be a lot simpler to answer back in the good old days when there were many fewer product choices and you were basically selling equipment to participants- a much more clearly defined customer group.
 
I know we’ve got skateboarding euphoria right now, but retailing is a tough business, the country is over retailed by most measures, and differentiating one store from another is hard. If I were a skate retailer, there are a handful of questions I’d be continuously asking myself to figure out what kind of retailer I was. Some of them you should always know the answer to. For others, it’s the continuing quest for the answer that’s the important thing.
 
How Do I Make Money?
 
The stock answer seems to be some variation on “Hard good margins suck and I make money on shoes, soft goods, and accessories.”
 
That’s probably correct, but not adequate. You have to calculate monthly which brands and product categories are generating how much of your sales and at what gross margin. If you’ve got a point of purchase system and a decent accounting package, you can probably calculate it every day, though I imagine you have better things to do.
 
In a past issue of Skate Biz, I presented a form you can use to calculate this. As I’m sure you carefully preserve all issues of Skate Biz in pristine condition in gilded binders, you can look it up. If you’ve misplaced your binders, email me and I’ll send it to you.
 
What might you do with this information? Let me answer a question with a question. How can you possible decide how much of which brands to carry and which products to emphasize in merchandising without it?
 
You also need a cash flow and regular financial statements (income statement and balance sheet- no less frequently than quarterly), but to me the revenue and gross profit analysis is the critical and irreplaceable document you require.
 
Who Are My Customers?
 
This is one of those questions you never really finish answering. And you can slice and dice your customer base a thousand different ways. I guess the first thing I’d want to know is how many of them are actually serious skaters. Second, I’d ask them their zip codes to find out where they come from. That has huge implications for your marketing efforts. 
 
Don’t assume that what you think you know about your customers is accurate, especially if you believe it hasn’t changed over time. The value of this data is not just in what you learn about your customers at a point in time, but in seeing how it changes over time, assuming you collect it consistently.
 
Granted, collecting this is a pain in the ass. What good might it specifically do you? Just for fun let’s show that the zip code data shows you are getting customers predominantly from a couple of high income neighborhoods, and that people are coming a long way to get to your store. My God, it’s the retailer’s wet dream. People with more money than they know what to do with going out of their way to visit your store. Maybe you could help them dispose of some of that pesky extra money by raising your prices a few points.
 
That’s an extreme example, and it’s unlikely the data will be so clear-cut. But the insights you can get will make a difference in the success of your shop.
 
Who’s the Competition?
 
Ask your customers. The beauty is that you don’t have to do this systematically. If you only remember to do it with every third customer or so, fine. “Where else do you buy shoes/decks/t-shirts/wheels?” It’s not so hard to ask. The hard part is remembering to write down and organize the responses. If you do that, you’ll probably end up with a fairly short list of often-mentioned stores where you have to go occasionally to check on their selection and pricing. Hopefully, you’re doing that anyway, and it would be great if you knew you were visiting the most important competitors. Of course, your most successful competitors are where you’d like to find new employees.
 
Compare your prices to your competitors. If you’re cheaper, do you need to be? If you are more expensive, why are you able to get away with it? Because you’re more convenient? Have a better image? Offer better service? Analyzing circumstances where you can hold a higher price will tell you a lot about your competitive position.
 
What Products and Brands Should I Carry?
 
Well, you can’t carry them all, and if you try to carry too many, you end up not doing justice to any of them. Picking products and brands to carry has to be just about the toughest and most critical thing a retailer has to do. Inevitably, it involves a compromise on a number of levels. Financially, there’s a decision between products that generate volume and those that generate margin. No doubt every retailer would like carrying only products that carry margins of 65 percent and higher. But volume would decline rather substantially, and covering overhead expense would be impossible.
 
There are also market driven product decisions. In the skateboard retail business, the predominant example has to be skateboard decks. Most retailers seem to have a wall of decks they display even while acknowledging that the product’s margin is lousy. I’m sure they’d love to be able to rip those decks down and put up a wall full of shoes, watches, and pants that offer higher margins, more margin dollars, or both. But you can’t be a skateboard shop without skateboards, so in this case marketing and image wins out, as it should, over strict financial considerations. After all, we’re serving and supporting a market- not just raking in the cash.
 
That doesn’t mean you’re helpless. If you’ve got answers to the questions posed above, you know where you make your money, and something about who your customers are, and who you’re competing against. That’s powerful information.  How can you use it?
 
Start by looking long and hard at products with low margin and volume. If you don’t have such things, great. If you do carry them, is there really a customer service or image reason to be doing that? Identify them and make a decision.
 
If you had more room, how would you use it? Which new brands would you bring in? Which brands you already carry would you allocate more space to? Your new knowledge of your margins, customers and competitors may allow you to bring in some of those products by making you comfortable with eliminating some others.
 
There will never be a time when you won’t have customers coming and asking for a product you don’t carry. Inevitably, you’ll wonder if you should have it. Armed with good data, maybe it won’t be such a hard question to answer.
 
Do twenty percent of the deck brands you carry account for eighty percent of your deck sales? The wall space those other decks take up could be used to show a lot of higher margin shoes or accessories. Your concern with such an action may be that your shop’s image as a skate shop will be tarnished if you don’t carry these brands, even if they aren’t fast movers and don’t provide attractive margins. But if you know where you make your money, what percentage of your customers are skaters and why they come into your shop, you have the ability to make a rational decision.
 
To a greater or lesser extent, every skateboard retailer goes through the kind of analysis I’ve described. Frequently, it’s informal, incomplete, irregular and based on gut instinct and experience instead of facts and a thorough analysis. It’s difficult to implement and institutionalize this kind of process. Once it’s part of the normal routine, however, it’s not much trouble. My experience is that the improvement in your decision-making process (and profitability) will more than make up for the inconvenience of having to learn to do some things differently.

 

 

Public Wisdom, Maybe; Comparing the 1999 and 2000 Buyers Guides

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I hold in my hand the Transworld Skateboard Buyers Guides from 1999 and 2000. Everything you could possibly want to know about decks, trucks, wheels, and bearings are in these guides.

 Well, okay, Transworld exercises some discretion in which brands make it into the guide and which don’t.   All the product from each brand isn’t necessarily included. Not everybody has actual suggested list prices so the ones included may be a little suspect. Certainly, the prices don’t bear much relationship to what things really retail for, do they?
 
Still, there are a lot of data points, and when you’ve got a lot of data points something statisticians call “regression to the mean” takes over and you find that you may be able to glean some relavent information in spite of all the inaccuracies.
 
I’ve spent a lot of time figuring out average prices and price trends and comparing them from one year to the next and listing and counting brands to see who’s there and how it’s changed from one year to the next. My fingertip is raw from punching the calculator button, and I’ve damn near gone blind staring at the guides (nobody warned me you could blind from reading skateboard buyers guides). So caveats aside, what can we learn from the two Guides about how the industry is evolving?
 
After we’ve looked at the Guide data, we’ll travel to a major skateboard internet site and see how the data checks with retail reality.
 
Decks
 
The 1999 Guide featured 411 decks from 49 brands. The 2000 edition had 402 decks from 60 brands. The increase in the number of brands has more to do with who Transworld put in the guide than with the number of brands there really are. The numbers exclude longboards.
 
The average suggested retail price for a deck declined from $54.79 to $53.35, or about 2.6%. The overall range of prices also moved down. In 1999, decks were priced from $39.95 to $76.95. In 2000, it was from $33 to $67. In 2000, everybody pretty much dropped the cents from their prices, rounding them to the nearest dollar and, incidentally, making my calculations a lot easier. Keep in mind that blanks aren’t included here.
 
MIK-
 
Here’s the distribution of decks by price for 1999 and 2000. I suggest you do a chart that shows the number of decks at each price point for each year.   You kind of need to do it, because I’m going to refer to it.
 
1999
 
Price               Number of Decks
 
34              3         
40              20
45                  20
46              90
47              14
48                  11
49                  22
50                  106
51                  4
52                  2
53                  5
54                  1
55                  35
58                  8
60              11
70              137
77                  1
 
2000
 
Price   Number of Decks
 
33          1
35              1
37                  2
40                  2
45                  7
48                  7
49                  2
50                  115
51                  3
52                  33
53                  99
54                  2
55                  38
56                  4
59                  10
60                  63
65                  3
66                  7
 
The two charts show the distribution of decks by price for the two years. Check out how the distribution has tightened up. There are fewer decks at either the lower or the higher price points. In 1999, there were 180 decks priced under $50. In 2000, the number is 22. Similarly, 1999 included 137 decks at $69.95 (I call them $70 on the chart). There aren’t any in 2000.
 
The distribution of prices has gotten a lot tighter, and the average suggested retail price moved up because of the huge decline in the number of lower priced decks. Basically, what you’re seeing is that consumers can’t afford to pay $70 for a deck (or can’t be convinced that it’s any better than a $50 deck), and nobody can make money on full graphic, branded decks that retail for under $40.
 
This tightening of the price distribution is absolutely consistent with a market where there are few real differences among products. The consumer is price resistant, and the brands all find themselves on the same cost curve. That is, it costs them all more or less the same for a deck. It’s inevitable that prices move closer to each other.
 
Wheels, Trucks and Bearings
 
There were 208 wheels in the 1999 guide from 48 brands with an average cost of $31.25 per set. The 2000 guide featured 224 wheels from 58 brands with an average cost of $30.58, down two percent. Again, be cautious in concluding anything from the number of brands.
 
Sets of wheels were priced from $24 to $43.95 in 1999 and from $20 to $40 in 2000. Prices moved down about four bucks per set, but the spread between the lowest and highest remained the same.
 
Now if I was really diligent (read that obsessive/compulsive) and had nothing else to do with my life, and loved the feeling of calculator buttons moving under my fingers, I’d go back and create the same kind of chart for wheels I did for decks. My guess is you’d see the same trend towards a tighter distribution of prices, and for the same reasons.
 
28 trucks were available from 19 brands in the 1999 guide. The average price, excluding the product for $100 a set, was $38.50 per set. They ranged from $19.60 to $100 per set, but if you take out that $100 set, the top price was $55.50 for a set. 
 
In 2000, 21 brands offered 43 trucks. The average price was $40.56, up 5.3%, excluding the $100 product. Prices ranged from $22 to $52.
 
Happily, there are fewer bearings to count and calculate. In 1999, sixteen brands offered 26 bearings. The average price was $20.79 a set and they ranged from $9.60 a set to $36.50 a set.
 
The 2000 guide featured 22 bearings from 15 brands at an average price of $19.73 (five percent lower than the previous year) excluding the $120 ceramics. Prices ranged from $10 to $37- basically the same as 1999.
 
Trends Across Products
 
The number of brands was up in all product categories except bearings, where it dropped by one. The number of product offerings was up everywhere except in decks, where it declined by two percent. Prices fell except in trucks.
 
It’s hard to interpret the increase in the number of brands. I want to emphasize again that it is probably more how Transworld put the Guides together than how the actual number of brands changed. I guess there are some new companies, and new brands also represent new offerings from existing companies trying to find a marketing advantage. It’s troubling for the industry as a whole that such a maneuver is part of the basis of competition. It just confirms the similarity of product from brand to brand.
 
Prices are tending down, at least slightly, even in what I believe is the hottest market that’s ever existed in skateboarding. In snowboarding’s go-go years, you could raise prices each year. The implications for what the market and industry may be like when (not if) growth slows aren’t very encouraging. Right now, if I were a brand that was having trouble meeting demand I wouldn’t try to meet quite all of it.
 
Yup, you heard me right. When business isn’t so good, the companies that will get through it successfully will be the ones who have nurtured their brand’s market position, built their balance sheet, and controlled expenses. The skateboard industry’s consumers tend to lose interest in any product that everybody has. What better way to support your brand then to make it just the slightest bit harder to find? I think it may be better marketing than some of the things you spend advertising and promotional dollars on.
 
Another trend, obscured by the coming and going of brands in the industry, is the dominance of perhaps the five or seven largest players.  As I watch deck prices move towards each other, with every player on basically the same cost curve, I’m certain, for better or worse, that these companies will end up with the lion’s share of the market. I’m not saying there isn’t some room for smaller players, but every industry has this trend towards consolidation.
 
Back in the Real World
 
Because of my healthy skepticism about the picture painted by the Guides, my nimble fingers have taken me to a major internet retailer of skate products. I didn’t check out every brand in every category, but I looked at a lot. Decks, including grip tape were either $44.99 or $49.99. Add some shipping costs, but may be subtract sales tax depending on where you are ordering from, and the price isn’t too far from the average price of $53.35 in the 2000 guide. Then, of course, there are the store brand decks for $29.99.
 
Almost all the trucks were either $33.98 a set for plain metal, or $37.98 for painted. The average price in the 2000 guide was $40.56. That number included both painted and plane metal trucks. Again, not so far off from this site’s prices if you take account of shipping costs.
 
Wheels were $23.96 a set “unless otherwise noted.” I saw some at $31.96 a set and there were the store brand wheels for $15.96 a set. That’s quite a different from our 2000 guide average price of $30.58.
 
To nobody’s surprise, the Guide’s suggested retail prices are higher than street prices when compared to one very comprehensive web retailer. We also confirm the tendency to move towards a simpler pricing structure, recognizing the lack of real product differentiation.   But except for wheels these retail prices are not that much higher then the Guide average prices. 
 
It looks like, at the end of the day, the lack of product differentiation is pushing product prices lower, but high demand is controlling, though not eliminating, that trend. At least for the time being.

 

 

Snowboards from Afar; The Potential Impact on Retailers

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

In the early 90’s, when snowboards started pouring into the U.S. from the Austrian ski factories, there were claims that consumers wouldn’t accept boards labeled “Made in Austria.” Mostly, those claims were made by U.S. factories threatened by foreign production. If there was a marketing advantage to a board “made in the USA,” it didn’t last long, and smaller inefficient U.S. producers went out of business.

In our consolidated, mature industry, brands are taking the next and inevitable step of looking for ways to cut production costs while maintaining or even improving quality. Boards have and are coming in from China, Tunisia, and Spain, and we can reasonable expect to see numbers from lower cost countries grow.
 
In seeking lower cost product, what are the issues the brands have had to consider? What’s in it for the retailer?
 
The Cost Equation
 
There are four basic components to the cost of a snowboard- materials, direct labor, factory overhead and allocated overhead.
 
No matter where you build it, Tunisia, China or Tierra del Fuego (uhhh, there are no factories in Tierra del Fuego as far as I know) the materials that go into the board are the same. You have the same choices of where to buy them. If everybody buys their materials from the same suppliers, the material cost of making a snowboard will be more or less the same for everybody. Would it make sense to start your own factory to make, for example, cores in a low labor cost country? Maybe. If you have enough volume. If you can get the right wood. If you could actually make them for less than it would cost to buy them from an efficient, established source.  
 
Direct labor is often the major advertised justification for making a snowboard outside of Europe or the U.S. Let’s say that you’re paying somebody $13 an hour, including taxes and benefits in the U.S. to make snowboards. If they work, for example, eight hours a day, 25 days a month, labor cost is $2,600 a month.
 
For sure direct labor is cheaper in China. Jim Ferguson, the President of Heelside doesn’t make boards there, but he’s a thirteen-year veteran of China, lived there, and has a boot factory there. “You don’t pay an hourly wage in China,” he said. “You pay monthly and the cost includes room and board.” He estimates his average cost is $150 per worker per month, and indicates that he’s more generous than many employers. But from his point of view, he more than gets it back in continuity and loyalty.
 
 Well, even without a calculator, I can tell that $2,600 a month is more than $150 a month. A lot more. So clearly if you compare the cost of a worker in a less developed country with the cost of one in the developed world, you’ve got a savings that’s somewhere between significant and huge.
 
Hold on. It’s not quite that simple. There are two related issues. Training and productivity.
 
If it took 11.33 (2,600 divided by 150) workers in China to make the same number of boards that one worker in the U.S. could make in a month, then there would be no direct labor cost advantage to making boards in China.   Both factories would spend the same amount of direct labor money to make a given number of boards. And maybe, when you first open the doors in China, that’s the case. Don’t underestimate the labor training costs in a new manufacturing operation. It’s easy to find people to make skate shoes in Korea. They’ve been making shoes there a long time. Out in the fabled Isles of Langerham, though, they’ve never heard of snowboarding.
 
Let’s also dispose right now of a common delusion about labor. Just because it’s cheap doesn’t usually mean that if one worker isn’t doing the job you can throw ten more at it and fix the problem. It may be true in ditch digging, but not in snowboard manufacturing. Only one person can work a snowboard press at a time, and ten untrained people can’t resolve the problems caused by one who doesn’t know what he’s doing. 
 
Having said that, it’s important to recognize that a lot of complicated products are produced perfectly well in so called third world countries and making a snowboard ain’t rocket science.
 
Things start to get really interesting when you look at overhead. Here in the States, if we want to start a factory, we see either a contractor or a commercial real estate agent, tell them what we want, and they either build it or find it. Maybe we’ve got to make changes or improvements in a rented facility, but we can generally assume that the place will have a level floor that isn’t dirt, and that water and power is easily accessible. We probably count on a road. 
 
All the money you have to spend to get the place the way you want it is called leasehold improvements. It gets amortized over time on the income statement. It can be a huge number in a low labor cost country.   
 
What does it cost a brand to have managers live in third world country? Maybe it’s only temporary until things are up and running smoothly- like a year or two. Who will perform maintenance and repairs on complex machines? How long does it take to get parts? In the States, you get them by FedEx the next day. In a low cost labor haven, you may have the expense of keeping a big inventory to keep things going.
 
But then, there are those costs for workers again, so it doesn’t cost much to keep the place clean. Or maybe you don’t have too. No Environmental Protection Agency after all.
 
Putting It All Together
 
Obviously, there are cost savings in making many products in low labor cost environments. Everybody’s doing it. In making the decision to go for it, the brands are asking the following questions:
 
·         Is the product already being made in the country I want to produce in? If so there’s probably already some experience there, and it’s easier to get going.
·         Can I just buy from an established producer, perhaps helping them improve their technology and processes, rather than starting my own factory?
·         Am I in this for the long run, and can I build enough volume? There will likely be some surprises and additional costs, both ongoing and of the one time startup nature.
·         Are those seductive, loudly trumpeted, low worker costs enough to make up for the additional expenses and surprises? As much as anything, that comes back to the issue of volume. There has to be enough volume so that the direct labor savings per piece are greater than the additional overhead costs.
 
The Retailer Perspective
 
Assuming that, in fact, it turns out to be cheaper to produce a board (or other product) of the same quality in these new locations, what benefits can the retailer expect?
 
For a start, it should be clear from the above discussion that production in low labor cost countries is not the magic potion of higher margins. Obviously, the benefits are expected to be there. But one manufacturer I spoke with described the years it took to get it right.
 
Also, remember that the brands aren’t necessarily rolling in dough. It’s not easy to make a buck in the snowboard hard goods business right now whether you’re a retailer or a brand.
 
So what retailers shouldn’t expect is to see sudden, big price reductions on wholesale product prices.
This is especially true because not all of anybody’s boards are likely to be made in lower cost countries. Marketing and research and development considerations suggest that production at traditional sources will continue. I’m sure we can all hear it now. “Well, yes, we’re making a few boards in Nepal, but our high end stuff still comes from our hi tech factory in the states and all our R & D is done there.”
 
But retailers may benefit in other ways. If there is, indeed, more margin for brands, you could see some of that show up as better customer service and expanded advertising and promotion by the brand. Part of the extra income may just stay on their balance sheet as additional profit, making it easier for them to make and sell the retailer boards they often don’t get paid for until six or more months from manufacture.
 
Often, the relationship between the brand and the retailer, at least in terms of product wholesale pricing, seems like a zero sum game. One wins, one loses. In this case I don’t think that’s true.
 
Assuming that the brands did pass through all of their supposed cost savings realized from moving production to low labor cost environments, retailers would inevitably, in the normal course of competing with each other, begin to lower prices. Each would know they didn’t really want to do it, but would feel the competitive situation required it.
 
Do you think that such cost reductions would make your sales volume go way up if your competitors had reduced prices in the same way? My guess is no.
 
Would you rather earn your usual margin on a $400.00 board, for example, or a $300.00 board?
 
If you sell the same number of $300 boards as you were selling of $400 boards, your total margin dollars decline. That’s a bad thing.
 
Cost reductions from new production locations won’t happen overnight. When (if?) they do happen, I’d select certain select, gradual price reductions to be passed on to retailers because the brands compete with each other in the same way that the retailers do. Overall, my hope is incremental profit for the brands goes into supporting the sport and the retailers. Maintaining brand image is key to everybody making a few bucks.
 
 
Check out the table below, taken from U.S. government data, showing snowboard imports from selected countries in 1999.
 
Country                      Units                           Value                         Cost Per Unit
 
Austria                       198,535                      $14,587,818              $ 73.48
Spain                          39,679                      $   3,771,523             $ 95.05
China                          67,765                      $   3,379,457             $ 49.87
Taiwan                        39,676                      $      623,477             $ 15.71
Tunisia                           4,600                      $      581,826             $126.48
Canada                      230,326                      $12,033,129              $   52.24
 
Some caveats and warnings about these numbers. Call me naïve, but I just have a hunch that all those boards coming in from Canada aren’t made there. I also suspect, especially in the case of the product coming from Taiwan, that the goods aren’t all what we’d call snowboards. Just materials for a real board cost several times the unit cost of $15.71.
 
As a retailer, you should keep in mind that these prices include second qualities, closeouts, kids stuff, and snowboard like products you wouldn’t be caught dead with in your store. So don’t look at any of these unit costs as necessarily indicative of what you’re favorite brand is getting the new season’s first quality boards for.

 

 

Competitive Challenges; Four Things You’ve Got to Do Better

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the August 1999 issue of SKATE Biz (Volume 11 Number 1), I wrote about two hypothetical skateboard factory owners, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll’s production was strictly OEM. Mr. Hyde had a successful brand and built his product at his own factory. They both made a bunch of perfectly logical and rational business decisions, but things kept getting worse financially. I suggested that their business models just didn’t work under emerging competitive conditions, then ended the article with the promise to suggest some fixes next issue.

            It didn’t happen “next issue,” but better late than never.
            The skateboard industry (including apparel and shoes) is highly competitive, with many competitors and little meaningful product differentiation. In this kind of environment, margins tend to drop while advertising and promotional costs stay high or increase. It can be hard times for many participants, even as the industry grows
.
            Well, you didn’t need me to tell you that, so I’ll get on with it. Sorry, I can be a little pedantic at times.
            You’re stuck with the business model. No individual company can influence significantly how the industry evolves because there is no dominant company. What can you do to succeed given the model? I want to suggest four things.
1. Growth Management
            The set of skills required to run a company with revenue of two-million dollars is completely different from what’s required to run a twenty-million-dollar company. When the company is smaller, you do everything. As it gets larger, you set the direction and supervise people who are doing everything. Those are two completely different skill sets. The faster the growth occurs, the harder it is to make the successful transition. Even if you do make it, there won’t be enough hours in the day to get it all done. You may be the best person at your company to do everything, but there isn’t time.
            You can become a huge bottleneck in the way the business operates. Everybody will be waiting for you to make decisions. I’ve seen it happen too many times.
            Some of the most successful entrepreneurs  hire their own bosses—if their egos will allow them to, that is. Usually, they aren’t willing to take that step until things are tough, and at that point, it’s hard to find people willing to step in.
            The person running a successful skate-industry company with over twenty-million dollars in revenue should ideally have fifteen-plus years’ experience in brand management and marketing (not just advertising and promotion). He or she should have managed growth and run a company larger than your company. It would be nice of they can read a balance sheet.
            There’s no reason management structure has to reflect ownership. If you’re an entrepreneur who has started and built your business, and you’ve made the transition to management, congratulations. If you’re not there yet, remember that a higher net worth and a business card that says “Founder” or “Creative Genius” seems preferable to a lower net worth and a business card that says “President.”
2. Systems
            Computer-system upgrades are a hassle, but do it now. Build it for what you want the company to become, not for what it is now. Get the latest (but not the bleeding edge) technology. Staff the function properly. Plan, plan, plan. Spend, spend, spend.
            What, all this for an accounting system? No. To control inventory. To put the right stuff in shipments. To manage cash efficiently. To make life easier for your customers. To make good advertising and promotion decisions. To gather critical marketing information.
            To spend money efficiently.
            Oh, and I guess you will end up with timely, accurate, detailed financial statements as a result.
            Recently, I got a close look at one skate-shoe company’s computer system. They’ve spent two years installing it—so far. The upgrades, customizations, and improvements never really end. It cost six figures already, and it’s still growing. Hardware is upgraded regularly. They’ve got around 10,000 SKUs (stocking units) available and are actively utilizing around half of that. If the size of the company doubled tomorrow, the system wouldn’t even be stressed.
            They didn’t need to spend all that, at least not right now. What a waste of money!?
            Not hardly. It’s almost physically impossible for them to ship the wrong stuff to a customer. They know immediately what sizes and styles are selling or not selling. Management can get almost any permutation of any report they need almost as soon as they ask for it. The reps know exactly what’s available to sell. Backorders are handled seamlessly as are calculation of discounts. Retailers get a packing list that tells them what’s in each box. The system is almost never down.
            What are the hard costs, not to mention the costs of customer and employee aggravation, of dealing with one pair of shoes shipped in the wrong size or color?
            How valuable is making it painless for your customer to buy from you and receive the inventory when every month the real differences between your product and that of your competitor are declining?
            The hard costs of buying and implementing a computer system show up as an expense on the income statement; the soft benefits of problems avoided and customers made happy don’t, but I’ll bet you they are more than the costs.

3. Brand And Distribution Management

            If there are competitors out there with a product that’s comparable to your product in quality and price, or is perceived to be comparable, then your success is ultimately going to depend on where you sell your product and how you protect and promote your brand name. Growth tops out if your only customers are ’core skate shops. But the market legitimacy of your brand goes to hell if it shows up at Costco, and ’core retailers will desert you.
            Between obvious ’core shops and Costco are all the shades of gray that make deciding whom to sell to such a critical management and marketing challenge. The challenge is made tougher by the fact that the industry financial model (more on that later) requires at least enough growth to get you to critical mass.
            How do you determine what are and are not appropriate product and distribution channel extensions?
            You’ll know them when you see them. I know that sounds like B.S., but it’s that simple and that complicated. It comes from good marketing, which I remind you not to confuse with advertising and promotion.
            Who are your customers and why do they buy your products? In a branded consumer-products business, the president and all the senior executives should be striving to improve their answers to those two questions all the time. Then it’s clear, as a result of your hard work and focus on the issue, that it may be okay, for example, to sell to Pacific Sunwear, but it’s not necessarily time for Garts. If you’ve done your marketing, you will literally know your customers when you see them.
            A good example of a product and brand extension in the skate-shoe business is DC’s all-terrain shoes. I have no idea how they came up with it, but it just makes sense. It has the following characteristics, which you might want to keep in mind when managing your own brand:
          · It capitalizes on the brand name.
          · It doesn’t require a change in distribution channels, but it may position them for some expansion in the future.
          · It puts them in a new category, but it shouldn’t cause any confusion among existing customers.
4. Managing Financial Reality
            As industries mature, larger companies tend to be the more successful ones. Why? If gross margins fall, but you have to spend the same or more dollars on advertising and promotion, you have to be larger. Otherwise, there just won’t be enough gross margin dollars around to adequately support the brand.
            I don’t look at that as my opinion. I don’t see it as a subject for discussion. It just is. How do you mold your company to conform to this fundamental financial law?
            At the risk of repeating myself, you make sure you have management personnel who know consumer-product brand management, have been through growth, and understand marketing. It costs money to do it wrong, and it could threaten the company’s survival.
            Utilize good marketing because it helps you spend your advertising and promotional dollars more efficiently and gives you a factual basis with which to make distribution and brand-extension decisions.
            You have the best systems you can get, and you lavish resources on them. They will give you some of the critical marketing data you need, and they will save you money because they will make your customers dependent on your systems and provide a point of differentiation when products aren’t all that different.
            Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde can both be successful. They just have to change the basis on which they compete to conform to existing market conditions and financial laws.