Skullcandy has a Strong Quarter

/0 Comments/in , /by

Skull’s sales for the quarter ended June 30 rose 46.4% to $52.4 million over the same quarter last year. Net income more than doubled from $2.1 to $4.3 million. This was helped by an income tax rate that fell from 56.6% to 41.6%. Gross margin essentially stayed the same, falling just one tenth of a percent to 51.1%. You can see the 10Q here.

Selling, general and administrative expenses rose $7.9 million or 84% to $17.2 million. There was a $3.7 million increase in payroll and $2.9 in marketing expenses. There were, obviously, also higher commission expenses on higher sales. As a percentage of sales, these expenses increased 6.8% to 32.9%.

Income from operations rose, but as a percentage of revenue it fell from 25% to 18.3%.
 
Skull is dependent on two Chinese manufacturers for their product. Like everybody else, they are experiencing higher costs from China and note that their gross margin might decline if they can’t pass these costs on to consumers.     
 
Remember that this quarter closed before they went public. As a result, we have $1.9 million in related party interest expense that wouldn’t be there if the offering had closed during the quarter. Also, I’m not going to spend any time on the balance sheet as it improved dramatically after the IPO. A bunch of cash has that impact on a balance sheet.
 
Just one balance sheet comment. Inventories grew 86% from $22.6 to $41.9 million. They discuss this in the conference call. Part of the growth was due to inventory levels being too low last year, and part is because of the acquisition of Astro Gaming. They also decided to increase their stock levels in 2011 to better service their retailers.
 
In discussing their outstanding orders, Skull says, “We typically receive the bulk of our orders from retailers about three weeks prior to the date the products are to be shipped and from distributors approximately six weeks prior to the date the products are to be shipped….As of June 30, 2011, our order backlog was $10.1 million, compared to $10.0 million as June 30, 2010. Retailers regularly request reduced order lead-time, which puts pressure on our supply chain.”
 
Obviously, they can’t wait for orders from retailers before placing orders with their factories. They say in the conference call inventory growth was roughly in line with sales if you ignore those three factors. But it looks to me like some of the inventory increase results, as Skull puts it, from “…pressure on our supply chain” that’s requiring some inventory growth in excess of sales growth.
 
Okay, one more balance sheet comment. There was a statement on the call about how, because they carried their inventory under FIFO, product margins had benefitted so far this year. In the second half of the year, as they start to sell the higher cost product, that benefit will go away. This inventory accounting stuff is going to start to matter with costs rising. I wrote about it in a bit more detail when I took my last look at VF Corporation.
 
The company’s net proceeds from the public offering in July were $77.5 million. Of that amount, $43.5 million, or 56.1% of the net proceeds, went right back out the door to pay accrued interest on convertible notes, unsecured subordinated promissory notes to existing shareholders, notes in connection with already accrued management incentive bonuses, and a bunch of other moneys due to existing stockholders. They used an additional $8.6 million to pay down their asset based line of credit in early August, and they may use a portion of the proceeds to buy back their European distribution rights. If that happened, that would leave them with $10.4 million of the offering proceeds, but they continue to have availability under their line of credit. 
 
If I had all the time in the world I’d like to go review and understand in detail how Skull financed its growth. It’s always hard to finance fast growth and it got harder when the economy went south. It must have been an interesting experience. Ah well, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.
 
In the conference call Skull management laid out its five major strategies. The first was to further penetrate the domestic retail channel. Skull is currently in Best Buy, Target, Dick’s and AT&T wireless. Domestic sales were about 80% of the total. During the quarter net sales to three customers totaled 27.4% of total sales and represented 44.4% of receivables at the end of the quarter.   That’s down from 33.2% of total sales and 46.9% of receivables at the end of the same quarter the previous year.
 
The second was to accelerate its international business, which is largely in Canada and Europe. It grew by 47.1% in the quarter and represented about 20% of total sales. A dispute with their European distributor had reduced 2010 sales, so part of the growth is catching up.
 
They sell in 70 countries and have 26 independent distributors. They want to distribute directly in key markets. This is a strategy most other companies in our industry have utilized.
 
57 North, their European distributor, represented more than 10% of their sales during the first half of 2011. In June, Skull entered into a non-binding letter of intent to buy those distribution rights back from 57 North for $15 million. As noted above, Skull has had a previous dispute with 57 North, and from the way they describe it in the 10Q, it sounds like there’s some uncertainty the deal will close. Maybe that’s just what they have to say because it’s a non-binding letter and negotiations are still ongoing. 
 
The third strategy is to expand their premium priced product category. The “vast majority” of their products are priced in the $20 to $70 range. They said they had premium products in the pipeline that could be released in the next 24 months. I’m pretty sure they said “could,” so unless they just used the wrong word, there seems to be some doubt as to the timing.
 
One of their existing premium products is the Aviator. They launched it in Apple stores and it was exclusively available there for six month. I like that distribution strategy but of course it may cost you some sales early on.
 
A fourth strategy is to expand complimentary product categories. This includes Astro Gaming’s head phones. They bought the company in April for $10.8 million. Astro sales are obviously included in the June 30 quarter. I don’t know exactly how much those sales were.
The fifth strategy is to increase online sales. Those sales were $4.3 million in the quarter, or 8.4% of net sales. In the quarter last year, online sales were 3.9% of total sales. $2.5 million was organic growth, which tells us that $1.8 million in online sales came from the Astro Gaming product. Organic online growth was 117% over the same quarter last year.
 
These are all fine strategies. In fact, they are so good that most companies are trying to implement them. What Skull says they have done is, “…revolutionized the headphone market by stylizing a previously-commoditized product and capitalizing on the increasing pervasiveness, portability and personalization of music.” I think they are right, but we’ll have to keep watching to see if they can continue to do it better than anybody else.   

 

 

PPR Buys Volcom, Probably

/8 Comments/in , /by

You know, I should have seen this coming and been sitting on 10,000 shares. But no such luck and anyway, I don’t own shares in companies I write about. Still, the deal’s not a complete surprise. Vans, DC, Reef, Sector 9 and Hurley are a partial list of industry companies that have been acquired by larger companies that wanted to get into or expand their action sports offering and grow their credibility with that customer group. Consolidation is not new, and most successful companies in our industry seem to reach a point (usually as they start to grow into the larger fashion market) where they perceive they need some help to continue growing and succeed in that broader market.

Volcom has been showing some symptoms of needing that help. Last time I wrote about them, in March, I said,

“But there comes a time, especially as a public company, when that strong brand positioning with a targeted consumer can make growing more of a challenge as the new customers you need don’t feel a strong connection with the brand and the customer you have may feel alienated if and as you do what you have to do to build a connection with the new one.”
 
“It’s not like this is a surprise to anybody who’s been around our industry for a while. Large or small, public or not, every company deals with this when they grow. I wrote last week about how Quiksilver is pushing its DC brand and my concern that they might push it too hard. Burton, when it changed its name from Burton Snowboards to just Burton, was dealing with this issue.”
 
I noted in the article that Volcom was counting on some broader distribution including the department store channel for growth, but that I wasn’t quite sure a company with the motto “Youth Against Establishment” fit in the department stores.
 
I went on to say, “Volcom says they make premium product that typically sells at premium prices and they’ve got a very distinctive image they’ve worked hard and successfully to build over 20 years. That sounds boutique like to me- not department store. Just saying.”
 
They’ve also had some issues with dependence on PacSun and too much inventory. In 2010 revenues were up 15.2% over the prior year, but net income increased hardly at all, from $21.7 million to $22.3 million. A decline in gross margin from 50.2% to 49.2% explains most of that.
 
During PPR’s conference call announcing the acquisition, one analyst ask why, if Volcom actually believes it can earn $2.20 to $2.40 a share in 2014 it was selling now for this price. The PPR CEO answer was something along the lines of “Uh, oh, well, I guess they think it’s a fair price.” Great question I thought and maybe Volcom’s answer has something to do with the issues I raised.
 
By the way, the reason I put “probably” in the article title is because no deal is done until it’s closed. Also, from time to time an offer from one company will result in a higher offer from another company. The board of directors of a public company has a fiduciary responsibility to do what’s in the best interest of their shareholders. They couldn’t just ignore a better offer they think has an equal chance of closing. Of course, what’s “better” can be open to interpretation. I don’t actually expect there to be another offer. PPR, as we’ll get to next, is an 800 pound gorilla and I consider the deal fully priced.
 
PPR had 2010 revenues of 14.6 billion Euros (2.3 billion of which was sold online). That’s north of $21 billion at the current exchange rate. Western Europe is about 59% of their revenues.  North America is 16%. They have 60,000 employees and their products are distributed in 120 countries. Volcom, at $321 million in revenues in 2010 is a tad smaller, but much, much cooler. It’s around 1.5% of PPR’s revenues. I’d like to tell you all about them, but their web site is in French. I guess I can at least say they are a French company.
 
 Oh- wait- here’s the English version. Their luxury group of brands includes Gucci, Bottega Veneta, Yves Saint Laurent, Balenciaga, Alexander McQueen, Boucheron, Sergio Rossi, and Stella McCartney. I’m pretty sure none of these brands are hanging in my closet even though I’m such a fashion forward guy. The Stella McCartney stuff just doesn’t accentuate my bust.
 
They also own PUMA, FNAC and Redcats. Okay, I know what PUMA does. FNAC is apparently in the process of being sold. In 2010, the luxury group was 27% of sales and PUMA was 18%. PPR has over 800 stores globally. Here’s a link to the English version of their 356 page reference document which I am not reading. It has some easy to absorb graphics you might be interested in. It’s a big file and a bit slow to download.
 
This is PPR’s first adventure into the action sports market. It should be interesting to watch. On an operational level it seems obvious that Volcom should benefit from PPR’s size in terms of systems, manufacturing, access to capital and operations. Those synergies are usually real, but also usually harder to achieve than people expect. I guess Volcom will report through PUMA. It was interesting to hear PPR management say that Volcom was complimentary to PUMA and then note that PUMA was not involved in action sports. Maybe they just meant complimentary in terms of getting Volcom into shoes in a much bigger way, which apparently we can expect.
 
PPR, of course, is particularly well situated to increase Volcom’s presence in Europe, where both Volcom and PPR think they have a lot of room to grow. It sounds like we can expect to see quite a few more Volcom stores worldwide (no numbers given). I wonder if Volcom product would fit into any existing PPR owned stores. Many PPR brands can reasonably be characterized as boutique brands and, as I suggested before, if Volcom’s description of their brand and its positioning is accurate, maybe that’s where they belong. But I have a hard time seeing Volcom in a Gucci store at the moment. Maybe Europe is different.
 
Volcom may be strategically important to PPR, but it’s an awfully small piece of the whole. As I listened to the PPR executives describe Volcom, it felt like they were reading Volcom’s description of itself and its market position right out of Volcom’s 10K. Even though they’ve been talking for a year, I was left unsure if PPR “got it” or not. Over the years, I’ve watched European companies try to break into the U.S. action sports market and just do it wrong. I’ve watched U.S. companies have the same problem going to Europe, if only because we start out thinking of Europe as one market.
 
One European analyst called Volcom a “sports” company and inquired of management if they were thinking of launching a PUMA action sports brand. Happily, PPR made it clear that was a bad idea. There was also a question about whether Volcom and PUMA could be distributed together.
 
PPR talked about “…building the Volcom business globally while maintaining its authenticity” and keeping it positioned as it is today without changing the target customer. Of course that’s what they want to do, or they wouldn’t be buying Volcom. But as I’ve written, it’s also the challenge. Every action sports brand comes up against this. At some level growing and maintaining authenticity becomes as challenge. PPR has, of course, dealt with all forms of distribution and growth issues, but I am not aware that PPR management has experience with this in the youth culture market. Growth, after some point, requires changing, or at least expanding, the target customer.
 
They will be relying on the Volcom team to continue managing the brand. The deal, however, is an all cash one at $24.50 per share (22.6 P/E ratio according to one investment banker) with no earn out component we learned in the conference call. I sure hope Richard Woolcott and his team are happy working with PPR.
 
Given the challenges Volcom faces, they’ve made themselves a good deal at the right time. PPR can certainly make them more efficient operationally, in manufacturing, and financially. They will help Volcom grow especially in Europe, and there will be an expanded retail presence. In the longer term, if PPR and Volcom managements have some patience with each other, we might see Volcom make a transition into the fashion market in a way no other action sports brand has done.
 
Youth Against Establishment indeed.

 

 

Home

/0 Comments/by
Read more

Contact

/2 Comments/by

I enjoy hearing from you, even when you disagree. The exchange means that I learn something, too. Leave a comment on any of my posts to contact me directly.

Email: jeff@jeffharbaugh.com
Office: (425) 698-7564

If you prefer, you can also use the form below to get in touch with Jeff.

Error: Contact form not found.

Resources

/0 Comments/by

Resources

Monthly Cash Flow Template

Download Sample Cash Flow Tool

A cash flow is the most important management tool a business can have, especially when the cash isn’t flowing the way you’d like. This template is typical of those I have used. It’s kind of generic, and can be modified for use by either a retailer or brand. There’s no magic to the line items I’ve chosen to use. You have to figure out what works for your business and style of management.

The more you use it, the more valuable and easier to use it gets. You learn to internalize it and develop almost a sixth sense for changes. As your business grows, it becomes ever more important because you’re ability to keep everything in your head declines.

I’ve written about cash flow several times. Go to the article archive and check out, for example, the article called “A Living Breathing Thing.”

Vision Worksheet

Click here to get the vision worksheet.

In the simplest things in our lives, we decide what we want to accomplish before we start doing. We do this unconsciously and instinctively because it’s the approach that works best.

With larger issues, like building a business, we often don’t take this approach. We start to work without deciding specifically what we want to have accomplished. The business draws us in. There’s so much to do that there’s no time to think.

How can you decide what to do if you don’t know where you want to be after you’ve done it? Begin with the end in mind.

A company’s owners need to share a common vision that will meet their goals. They need to specify what they want out of the company. All owners’ visions need not be combined into one statement, but it is important that they not conflict significantly.

The process of writing the vision forces you to think rigorously about your goals. In the process, you can expect some surprises, and to learn about yourself. Its hard work, but it will expand your perspective and help identify what is really important.

Writing a vision is a very individual activity. It can’t be rushed or done by a strict schedule. Come back to it as your thoughts evolve. Both your emotions and your intellect are important to the process.

The vision is the first step in the strategic planning process. It is the basis for establishing the company’s mission statement and goals. This clarifies how the company operates for the management team and is critical to developing a flexible, responsive organization.

The outline on the following pages will give you some ideas about what a vision statement might contain, but don’t be constrained by it. There are no right answers about what should be included.

It’s common for me to get requests for industry information.  Sometimes it requires a simple answer I’m happy to provide.  More often it’s along the lines of, “Can you please send me a breakdown of sales for surf, skate, snow by brand and country worldwide along with an analysis of all the retail channels they use?”

I politely explain that if I had that compiled in an easily accessible form, I’d be selling it for a whole lot of money and go on to provide them with some links that might help them do their own research.  An expanded version of that list is below.  If you’re in the industry, there may not be much you haven’t seen before.  If you’re just learning about it, this could be a good place to start.

I’ve listed them in alphabetical order

Action Watch
Australian Surf Business
Beach Grit
Board Rap
Board Retailers Association
Boardsport Source
Boardistan
Concrete Wave
Group Y
International Association of Skateboard Companies
Mountain Weekly News
National Ski Areas Association
NDP Group (Leisure Trends)
Propaganda HQ
Shop-Eat-Surf
Ski Area Management
Snowsports Industries of America
Surf Expo
Surf Industry Manufacturers Association

Here are links to the investor relations part of the web sites of public companies in the industry.  Their public filings, press releases and occasional presentations can be good sources of information.

Abercrombie & Fitch (Hollister)
Amer Sports (Atomic, Salomon, Arcteryx, others)
The Buckle
Big 5 Sporting Goods
Deckers (Sanuk)
Emerald Expositions
Genesco (Journeys)
Globe
GoPro
Hibbett Sports
Kathmandu (Rip Curl, Oboz, Kathmandu)
Kering
Luxottica
Nike
Tilly’s
Vail Resorts
VF Industries (Vans, The North Face Timberland, other)
Yeti
Zumiez

Market Watch Column

/0 Comments/by

Market Watch Column

 

About

/0 Comments/by
Read more

Nike’s 8/31/09 Quarter, Their Impact on the Industry and Quips on Conference Calls

/0 Comments/in , /by
Nike put out a press release on its quarterly earnings two days ago and held a conference call on their results yesterday. This has all happened before the actual 10Q with all the detailed information and footnotes is available. So on the one hand, I’d like to be timely and have this done before everybody loses interest, but on the other hand I’d like to have the best information I can have before expressing an opinion. There’s a concept!
 
The prepared comments that started off the conference call had a sort of “Aren’t we wonderful? Didn’t we do just what we said?” feel to them. From a business point of view I suppose they are and I guess they did. Still, I’d like to do my own analysis and not be lead by the hand to my conclusions. That’s why I’d like the 10Q to come out before the press release and the conference call.
 
Then come the questions from the analysts that work for the investment banks.  The questions are usually preceded with some form of “Hey, how are you guys today?” Great Ralph/Sally/Fred! Good to talk with you again!” There’s a collegial sense to the conversations that seems to preclude tough questions.
 
To be fair, I’m not sure there are a lot of tough ones you could ask about Nike, but it still feels a bit like an attorney questioning his own witness at a trial. This isn’t an issue just with Nike. At the last Quiksilver conference call, nobody asked, “Where are you going to get revenue growth from?”   As I’ve written, I think that’s the key issue they have to address.
 
There was one question from a guy named Brian on the Nike call whose last name I couldn’t quite hear from a company called Research something and I couldn’t hear the end of that either. I’m thinking he might not be an investment banker. Nike had announced that they were changing their primary profitability measure from pre-tax income to earnings before interest and taxes, “…which is the primary measure used by our management team and board to make decisions about resource allocation and to evaluate the performance of individual operating segments.”
 
Now, I see Nike’s point from a management perspective. But if I were an analyst concerned with the stock price, I’d know that net income is the primary determinant of stock performance over anything but the short term, and that’s what I care about when I look at a stock. Not pre-tax income, not earnings before interest and taxes, not proforma income, not earnings before extraordinary items, not even EBITDA- earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Call me old fashioned, I guess.
 
So my hero Brian steps up and asks, “Will the change to EBIT change the company’s focus on how you deploy capital?”  I don’t think I have his questions exactly as he asked it, but the implication was that it wasn’t clear if the change was conducive to focusing on bottom line earnings. Nike, you’ll be stunned to learn, said that of course they would continue to be focused on bottom line earnings. They went on to explain that this didn’t change the way top management was measured and incentivized and that among the things they were measured on was stock price and earnings. Good answer I thought. Also the only one they could reasonably give.
So Brian, if you’re out there, thanks for asking a great question and keep up the good work.
\
Anyway, in the quarter ended August 31, Nike’s revenues fell 12% to $4.8 billion. Gross profit fell 14% to $2.215 billion. Gross profit percentage fell from 47.2% to 46.2% as a result of currency fluctuations and mark downs. Selling and administrative expense was down 17% to $1.546 billion. It actually fell as a percentage of sales from 34.2% to 32.2%, which is a good job with sales also down.
Because their income tax rate fell from 28.5% to 24.7%, they were actually able to increase net income by $3 million to $513 million.
The balance sheet is strong, to say the least. I guess their biggest issue is what they are going to do with $3.6 billion of cash and short term investments. That can’t be earning much given current interest rates, and I’m sure they’d like to see it deployed.
 
Revenues in all their categories (footwear, apparel, and equipment) declined in North America, Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, and greater China. Japan managed four and five percent increases in footwear and equipment respectively. The “Other Businesses” group includes Converse and Hurley. We learned in the conference call that “Converse grew revenue by 10% and delivered its most profitable first quarter ever, up 13% over last year.”
 
“Hurley delivered its 2nd biggest revenue quarter ever.” Nike reported that it “…gained share in the Action Sports Industry,” and “…continued to grow at a double-digit rate with market share gains while the rest of the industry declined.”
Overall, Nike’s action sports business grew 25% in the first quarter. Without giving any numbers, they noted that the direct-to-consumer business saw record revenue in the quarter. Online business was up 19%.
 
The interesting thing about Nike, of course, is that we’re even talking about them. I’m guessing it was only six or so years ago that nobody in action sports even cared about Nike. We’d go to their parties, drink their beer and laugh at their failed attempts to break in. They now seem to have figured it out. Partly that’s because they learned from their mistakes- always a good thing to do. But it’s also because being big in this industry is no longer a sin that automatically costs you credibility.
 
Too much analysis of their numbers is, frankly, kind of a waste of time. Their numbers are big and good. Complaining, as some have, that it’s somehow wrong for them to use their size and financial strength to push their action sports business at a time when other companies are weaker is a waste of time. I’d do the same thing in their position. So would you.
 

The question isn’t how Nike is going to run their business. I imagine they are going to do just fine, thank you very much. The question is how you are going to run yours, big or small, given what their success represents to the evolution of the industry.

 

Quiksilver’s Quarter and Nine Months Ended July 31, 2009

/0 Comments/in , /by

I’ve read the press release and listened to the conference call, and here’s what I found out.

Quik’s total revenue for the quarter fell 11.2% to $501.4 million from $569.9 million for the same quarter the previous year. Their gross profit margin fell from 50.4% to 46.7%. Selling, general and administrative expense was down 9.1% to $211.8 million. Interest expense rose 30% to $15.3 million. Instead of a foreign currency gain of $1.2 million, they had a loss of $3.5 million.

After taxes, they had income from continuing operations of $3.4 million compared to $33.1 million in the same quarter the previous year. Those numbers exclude Rossignol.
 
The loss from discontinued operations (Rossignol) was $2.1 million this quarter compared with $30.2 million last year. Net income this quarter was $1.35 million compared to $2.85 million last year. That’s $0.01 per share compared to $0.02 last year. Income per share from continuing operations was $0.03 compared to $0.26 in the same quarter last year.
 
The numbers for the nine months ended July 31 show a decline in revenue of 13.2% to $1.44 billion compared to the nine months the previous year. Gross profit margin fell from 50.0% to 46.9%. There was a net loss from continuing operations of $57.5 million compared to a profit of $79.4 million for nine months the previous year. Net income, including the impact of Rossignol, was a loss of $190.3 million this year and $225.3 million last year for nine months.
 
We learned in the conference call that footwear sales have finally softened, and that weakness in the junior’s market is having some impact on Roxy. They are in the process of implementing structural changes and expense reductions that should improve profitability by $40 to $60 million over a full year once implemented. About half of this amount will come from margin improvement, and the restructuring has been extended to include DC Shoes once it was clear that the brand was not going to be sold.
 
They are using what Chairman and CEO Bob McKnight characterized as “More measured and creative approaches to marketing and advertising.” He cited as an example a reduction of 75% in trade show expense achieved by utilizing buses outfitted as booths that are driven into the show and then surrounded by pop up tents. I like it and look forward to seeing it.
      
Over on the balance sheet, total assets fell from $2.34 billion at July 31, 2008 to $1.88 billion at July 31, 2009. That includes a $67 million reduction in trade receivables and a $25 million decline in inventory, both of which you’d expect as part of managing through a recession. Most of the reduction came from current assets held for sale falling from $358 million to $2 million with the sale of Rossignol. There was also a decline of $96 million in goodwill.
 
Total liabilities fell $204 million to $1.435 billion. This was almost exclusively due to the reduction in current liabilities. Long term debt fell only $10 million to $734 million. That’s not a surprise as the debt restructuring Quik has been working on (the last piece will close this month) was meant to spread out maturities, not reduce debt. 
 
The current ratio, at 1.65 has declined only marginally from 1.71 last year. Total liabilities to equity has grown from 2.34 times to 3.26 times, largely as a result of stockholders’ equity falling from $700 million to $441 million. To me, this highlights the fact that Quik still has some work to do in improving its balance sheet, but with Rossignol and the restructuring behind them, they can do it by running their business well. 
 
Quik expects its fourth quarter revenues to be down in the mid teens on a percentage basis compared to the same quarter a year ago. It anticipates a loss per share, on a fully diluted basis, in the mid-single digit range. Earnings will be impacted by the higher interest expense they will incur as a result of the restructuring. They reduced their projection of that expense by $10 million to $100 million and pointed out that $30 million is non cash. Interest expense in their last complete fiscal year was $45 million. They expect interest expense of $21 million in the fourth quarter, and further gross margin contraction of 150 basis points (1.5%) 
     
Quik’s profitability improvement plan should just about make up for their increased interest expense. After all this good work in restructuring and managing expenses, the question is where do sales increases come from? In that regard they have the same issue as every other brand; “The company indicated that longer term visibility into revenues and earnings remains limited due to global economic conditions.” 

 

 

Product Line Size; The Impact on the Way We Do Business

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It began, I suppose, a couple of months ago when somebody at Burton sent me their complete catalog, buying book, whatever you want to call it, including prices and terms. Damn near five pounds it weighs according to my handy, dandy bathroom scale including colorful blue binder. It contains all of the Burton Company’s brands and certain product for international distribution that won’t be seen in the States, so sure it’s big.

Ride’s catalog isn’t as big by weight, but it comes with two CDs full of product images and photos.
Well, you get the picture. Big product lines and lots of information to digest. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more products to choose among than when there were 250 snowboard companies.
Big product lines aren’t new, and at least for the larger brands, no retailer buys everything the brand offers. But what struck me like a blinding bolt of the probably obvious is how much the business of snowboarding has had to change just because the product lines have become so large. Over the last eight or ten years in snowboarding we’ve studied changing competitive conditions, discussed diversification as a way of overcoming seasonality, the impact of foreign production, the role of chains, and “fixing” the buy sell cycle. I’ve been in the middle of some of those conversations.
Imagine my chagrin when I considered the possibility that a simple thing like the increased size of product lines may have been as or more important to industry evolution than the other apparently more important and more complex business factors we’ve taken so much time and energy to discuss and try to manage.
There is the chicken/egg factor to consider. I’m arguing that certain industry changes happened because of the increased size of product lines. You might also argue that product line increases were largely a response to the other changes mentioned above. I’ve previously suggested that to some extent increases in the size of product lines were a response to what competitors were doing rather than an attempt to meet identified customer needs. To the extent that is true, I am comfortable suggesting that large product lines have changed the way the industry functions.
Where are these changes? In general, the process of getting a specific order takes more preparation, a more cooperative and business oriented relationship between the company’s rep and the retailer, and more time if only because there are more factors to consider. Specifically, the role of trade shows, the selling process, and the reps function and relationship with the shop are all different. Let’s see how.
Trade Shows
How long, exactly, do you think it would take one of the major brands to present its whole product line to a retailer? Three hours? A day? After that presentation, assuming you can still hold your head up, how much do you think you’d remember? How long would it take to figure out your order and get it written? No retailer should be allowed into a product presentation meeting without first chugging two Red Bulls and presenting a notarized affidavit that they got a good night’s sleep.
For many brands it’s difficult at best (Impossible for most brands in my opinion) to show what they need to show to all the retailers they need to show it to, at Vegas alone. Mervin Sales Manager Greg Hughes says that the SIA show has become more important for them because it’s a preview show. “But we have a hard time showing all our product to all the retailers who want to see it at the show, and we’re smaller than a lot of other guys.”
If you think about the sheer time commitment, and logistics of getting an order together from a major brand it’s pretty clear why SIA adopted the “See it, try it, buy it” approach for the buy sell cycle and why Vegas is more “See it” than “Buy it.” If you do complete your buy there, it’s likely that a lot of preparation went into it before the show.
Burton National Sales Manager Clark Grundlach says Vegas is not about writing orders any more. “It’s an opportunity for dealers to review previous decisions and maybe see some late stuff. Sixty percent of our dealers will have seen the line before Vegas. We can’t show the line any other way given its size. The six weeks between Vegas and when everything has to be wrapped up just isn’t enough time.”
Clark didn’t say, but I’ll bet sixty percent of dealers means north of eighty percent of total sales.
The regional shows seem to be either more or less important, depending on who you are. For Burton, with eighteen territories and its own showrooms, the regional shows are a good place to sell accessories and to see some smaller dealers who didn’t get to Vegas. According to Mervin’s Hughes, on the other hand, “Mervin gets a lot of solid orders at the regionals. We can show our whole line there.”
Rossignol Marketing Manager Christine McConnell sees it a lot like Hughes. “They see it in Vegas, and buy it at the regional shows,” she says, but notes that around forty percent of accounts have seen at least some product before Vegas.
Selling Process
Remember the days when your whole product line (nine decks, one binding and some ts and hats) fit on a trifold? Assuming the retailer had decided to carry your brand, you could show the line and get the order in about twenty minutes. Then you both just had to pray the stuff actually showed up somewhere near when promised and that the quality wasn’t too bad. Some of you are smiling as you read that, remembering a very different snowboard industry. Some of you (your loss I’d say) don’t know what I’m talking about. God, it was more fun then.
Sales meetings tend to be in early to mid December now. Especially with soft goods, which typically have to be delivered before hard goods, an early start and on time delivery is more critical than ever. Limited showing of product lines seems to take place in December. According to Rossignol’s McConnell, smaller retailers have their hands full trying to sell everybody’s current product. “The reps have their samples in December and are ready to go, but don’t really start showing product until January. They don’t want to get in the retailer’s way.”
For chains and large accounts, where the selling and buying isn’t done by the same person, I suppose you can do a December presentation without disrupting the selling process. Still, if I were a retailer, big or small, I’d like to know what my sell through was like before I talked about new buys. And that doesn’t happen until the holidays are over, at least in hard goods.
Role of the Rep
More and more, it seems to be the rep’s role to consult with and recommend to shops what product they should carry. Armed with a lot more detailed information then they use to have on last year’s purchases, sell through and the retailer, they can and often do propose a buy for the customer that fits their size, open to buy dollars, and customers.
Mervin’s Hughes put it this way. “Good reps suggest what to buy. They know the shop, and they know what’s going to be highlighted in ads and videos, and that drives sales.”
In hard goods, I suspect retailers, especially smaller ones, are inclined to listen to a well-prepared rep. These days, all hard goods are highly functional. Brand choices are a lot fewer than they use to be, and brand switching, as a result, less common. Hell, what are you going to switch to that’s going to make any difference?
A decline in product differentiation from brand to brand means the reps can be an important competitive tool in placing product with a retailer. The quality of the business relationship between the rep and the shop buyer may have a lot to do with the brand’s success in the shop. Rossignol’s McConnell puts it succinctly: “Between the rep and buyer, they know what’s up in the shop. Their combined efforts go a long way towards insuring the right purchasing strategy.”
This relationship helps the process of getting the order together. There should be broad, early agreement on what parts of a large line are or are not appropriate for a given retailer. In some cases, the brand simply isn’t prepared to sell certain product to a retailer. The retailer’s size and open to buy for the brand may also dictate where to focus the buy in a product line they can’t possibly carry all of.
Finally, the rate of change in snowboard product simply isn’t as great as it use to be, and that takes some of the angst out of trying to pick the “right” product and reduces the difficulty of working through a huge line. Inertia can be seductive, though dangerous.
I suppose the possible downside for the brand comes at the end of the season if the rep recommended product didn’t sell through which, at the end of the day, is what it’s all about. “Hey, your rep told me to buy this stuff, which is still sitting here, and you’re pushing me to pay this bill?! Back off.” I’ll bet that conversation is the basis for a deal or two in the annual snowboard industry rite of spring- settling accounts.