Posts

China, Small Brands, Inventory; Visions from Vegas

/0 Comments/in , /by

Purposeful. In a word, that’s how I’d describe the show. There was the quiet hum of business being done and if the aisles weren’t as full as I’ve seen them in the past, and the noise level was somewhat subdued, it was because the booths were full of people focused on doing business. Sure, I miss the good old days a little, I guess. It really was fun to hear what brand got thrown out of the show for which infraction.

Still, I’d rather people were realistic about doing good business instead of being naively optimistic like they use to be. It’s good for the businesses and good for snowboarding.
 
I want to illustrate that with short discussions of three things I noticed in Vegas. Each could probably be a whole column. And may turn out to be, come think of it.
 
China
 
Not new of course. And I took a whole column to talk about it some issues ago. But what struck me is what a non issue Chinese production is now. Hopefully the extra margin gets allocated in such a way as to both give brands better profitability they can use in supporting the sport and consumers a better deal.
 
But what’s new about China is the impact of the strengthening of the Euro against the Dollar. Stuff was already cheap in China when a Dollar bought one Euro. Now it takes a buck and a quarter to purchase a Euro. All other things being equal, a snowboard made in a factory in the European Common Market is now 25% more expensive than it was some months ago. The Chinese snowboard has stayed the same price, because the Chinese currency is pegged to the dollar.
 
In the course of my wandering at the show, I found myself talking with a representative of one of those European snowboard factories I had known for some years.  In my usual subtle way, I asked him if he had opened a Chinese factory yet. He smiled, but I didn’t think it was completely genuine, if you know what I mean.
 
Being completely incapable of taking a hint, I commented, “Well, maybe when the Euro hits 1.5 to the Dollar.” I got another one of those smiles and the subject changed. What has me worried is that, as an industry, competitive pressure to make and sell less expensive product means we’ll end up with less margin dollars in total to play with even if our gross margin percentages stay the same or even improve.
 
More about that later. Though it’s not obvious, these three Vegas issues of China, small brands and inventory are all related and by the end of this I hope to show how.
 
Small Brands
 
There were a bunch, and they seemed to be doing great! What a relief. Snowboarding took off because it was fun and because it gave kids something to belong to that was different and unique. Skiing, when it consolidated, was reduced to basically nothing but large company brands with the result we are all familiar with. Snowboarding consolidated, and it was fashionable to talk about how it was becoming “just like skiing.”
 
Apparently, it’s not. Somehow, through the consolidation, a number of smaller, snowboard only brands managed to hang in there. And now more are popping up. Not just appearing and then disappearing, but hanging in there.
 
You might have expected that the sheer size and marketing power of the big brands would have left damn little room for the smaller players. To some extent that happened. But interestingly enough, the sheer size, and the push for growth through broadened distribution by the big guys, didn’t kill the small brands. It validated them.
 
I’m not quite certain why that is, but I’ll speculate a bit.
 
First, though some have been better and some worse, the major brands have pushed hard to find all the distribution they could. I’m not saying that as a criticism, but as a statement of fact. Maybe it was the inevitable competitive response- you know, get the market share before they do coupled with a grow or die mentality. Had that growth been a little more selective, perhaps the opportunity for small brands would have been less because the major brands would have been less like commodities available everywhere.
 
Second, the sheer size of the leading brands makes it hard for them to be quite as in touch or quite as “cool” or quite as at the edge than a smaller brand. You lose an edge when you get to be a certain size. You just do. I heard the story at the show about the small brand that had run an ad explaining how to change the picture on a lift ticket, or forge it, or something. Apparently some of the resorts aren’t too pleased with this for some reason.
 
No large brand, with its rental relationships with resorts, is likely to do that. And I have to confess that while I laughed, I’m don’t like encouraging that kind of behavior. But remember ten plus years ago when the goal was just to find a way onto the hill even if you had to duct tape your binding together, even if the choice was between a lift ticket and food and even if the resort didn’t want you and your snowboard there?
 
Perhaps I wax a bit too nostalgic, but this brand with its lift ticket scam reached back and touched that a bit, not to mention appealing to basic greed.
 
We need the enthusiasm- the “I don’t give a damn I just want to snowboard” feeling- if we want to continue to grow the sport. The success of smaller brands is a barometer of how effectively we are doing that.
 
For that to happen- for the small brands to grow and succeed- they need to make a few bucks. They need not to just to grow in units, but to earn gross margin dollars. That implies a certain cost and pricing structure that may not be compatible with too much inexpensive Chinese product (no matter what its quality) and resulting price competition among leading brands. As they are discovering in the skateboard business right now, if there’s enough price difference and the quality is the same, a lot of kids will forego the hot brand for the feel of cash in their pockets.
 
Which brings us to-
 
Inventory
 
As a finance guy by training, this was the most glorious thing I heard at the show. Retailers were telling me how they were calling up brands to buy some closeouts (an old and honorable tradition) and couldn’t find much. Could it be that the brands were finally coming around to my way of thinking? That it’s better to agonize about not having product to sell than about having it. Hope so.
 
I’ve been making that argument for years because I believe that the best advertising you can do in a one season business like snowboarding is to say, ‘Sorry! Sold out!” No close outs, no old inventory, no retailers pissed because the stuff they paid so much for is now on sale at Chain Store X for less than their cost, bigger preseason orders next year, lower advertising costs, and higher margins for everybody.
 
A little scarcity lets us sell value- not just snowboards. Value goes for a higher price.
 
You can begin to see how these three issues come together based on self interest which, to nobody’s surprise, is the best way to engender cooperation among a group of stakeholders with competing interests.
 
Growing snowboarding requires successful smaller brands and specialty retailers. You can’t just market your way into growth forever. At some point, no matter how good the marketing is, it becomes ubiquitous and mainstream if only due to sheer volume. The excitement and sense of belonging to something declines. Smaller brands and specialty retailers can keep some of that going.
 
But to stay in business and do what we all seem to think they need to do smaller brands and specialty retailers need margin dollars, because by definition they aren’t going to make it on volume.
 
Margin dollars come from some combination of higher prices and lower costs. The lower costs, like with product from China, can’t be all pushed down to the consumer by competitive pressures. The higher prices come from some discretion in distribution and the right kind of promotion.
 
I’m probably being wildly optimistic here, but what I’m painting is a scenario where some improved control of inventory and distribution by brands, the success of small brands, and judicious use and pass through of the extra margin from foreign production works for brands and retailers in not only keeping snowboarding special and growing the sport, but in financial performance as well.
 
Not too bad.

 

 

Hey! Look at All the Retailers! Good News From Vegas

/0 Comments/in , /by

Flying in from ASR in Long Beach, where the consensus was that the number of retailers was down significantly, it was a relief to get to the SIA show in Vegas and see the place jumping. It was simply the best show since some time in the mid 90s. Not just by energy level but, in my perception, business being done.

 How come? What happened? When there are still too many trade shows back to back to back, and the economy is soft, how did SIA and the snow sports industry manage to pull this off?
 
Uhhhh, well, actually, I don’t know for sure and I don’t think anybody else does either, but let’s explore some of the factors that may have made the difference and see what they might mean for snowboarding.
 
New, New, New
 
I guess we start with the new location. The food was better, the accommodations more convenient, the walking easier, the ride from the airport shorter, and the smaller footprint helped keep it exciting. Like in your high school physics class, when you compress molecules into a smaller space, they move faster.
 
It even kept it exciting, more or less, all over the show. Use to be that all the energy was in the snowboard section and up in the ski part of the show, nothing would be going on. But this show, for the first time ever in my memory, there was even some buzz, and apparently some retailers, in the nonsnow board part of the show. This extended beyond the couple of ski booths, like Line, that had a distinctly snowboard feel to them.
 
Product was new too. Oh, not so much new technically, but because of the earlier show date, most people, especially from the non chain retailers, are seeing product for the first time. That can generate some excitement.
 
There were perhaps a half dozen new, or recently arrived, small snowboard companies. There’s been lots of talk (some in this column) about the opportunity that smaller brands may have. Their arrival suggests a level of optimism and enthusiasm for the snowboarding business that may be stronger than it has been over the least couple of years. I don’t want to underestimate the business challenges they face, but I sure want to see them succeed. One of the reasons they may is that they seem more business focused than most of the many new brands that popped up eight to ten years ago.
 
One of the things that caught my eye was the quality of the decks’ fit and finish. Graphics, in a word, were generally spectacular. We went through a period of year where graphics seemed kind of taken for granted. Now, with functionality being so good for all brands, graphics may emerge again as a basis for product differentiation.
 
Nitro had a level of detail in its graphics that required a close look and careful study if you didn’t want to miss any of the points of interest and, in some cases, sheer fun that long time Nitro designer Mike Dawson had included. Arbor combined their traditional wood with eye catching screened graphics on certain models in a way that I thought gave their original look a run for its money. Volkl had a finish with two textures that made you stop and figure out what you were touching as you ran your hand over the board.
 
New exhibitors like Volcom added their unusual presentation and irreverence to the mix. I’m glad I didn’t have to clean up all those tortillas.
 
Also new was a four day show, after five days in recent years. Obviously, if you squeeze the same number of retailers and business meetings into four days instead of five, things will look busier even if the same amount of work gets done. I’m okay with efficiency- how about three days next year SIA? How long did retailers really stay at the show?
 
Trade Show Politics
 
The retailers (and the brands for that matter), have more trade shows than they want or can possibly attend. Organizations being the way they are, the companies that put on trade shows are going to keep putting on their shows and hope the other guy goes away. From what I’ve seen and heard at other trade shows this trade show season, SIA seems to be the one that gets to hang out and say “Our show rocks! And yours doesn’t.” That means, I guess, that any talk about snowboard companies exhibiting at ASR instead of Vegas won’t be more than talk. It probably never would have been anyway. Even if the snowboard companies are soul mates to the skate and surf companies exhibiting at ASR, they have to do business with the many ski shops that come to Vegas but not to ASR.
 
SIA’s successful show might also put them in a better arrangement to negotiate a merger with Outdoor Retailer, with whom I hear they overlap a day next year. A number of people I talked to about trade shows in general suggested that would be the best thing to do. But there’s still the same problem that existed last year when the two organizations talked about some kind of merger. OR is for profit and SIA isn’t. How you negotiate starting from those two completely different perspectives continues to be beyond me.
 
Business Trends
 
The earlier show dates are consistent with the strategy I see snow retailers pursuing in their purchasing. Either because they are smarter, the economy is soft, boarders aren’t buying new stuff as often, or because the brands will tend to let them get away with it, snowboard retailers are going to be continuously cautious in their ordering. I expect to see preseason orders for basically what they think they can sell through Christmas and maybe a little beyond. Then they can come to Vegas and get any end of season products they need at better prices.
 
Some brands have said they will only produce to preseason orders, with the usual increment for team, warranty, demos, etc. So some retailers may find they can’t fill in after the holidays with the product they want.
 
I don’t see selling product at large discounts after January 1 as a big money maker for anybody- especially for brands who paid preseason order prices for product. Maybe the best thing that could happen to the industry is if there was just a bit of product scarcity from time to time. So I hope the retailers are cautious in their ordering and the brands are cautious in their production. That would be the best for the snowboard industry overall.
 
In another outburst of raging optimism, I’m hopeful that the quality of the show is at least partly the result of all the time, effort and money that the whole winter sports industry, especially the resorts, has spent on programs to improve facilities, the learning experience, and the overall customer experience in the last five to eight years. That has got to be having a positive impact, and maybe we’ve seen it at the show for the first time.
 
One other thing I’d like about the early show as a brand, or at least as the finance guy for a brand, is the ability to deal with retailers who haven’t paid me in January instead of March. In January, you can have the, “Well, we’d like to take your order and give you the show and preseason discounts, but we need to clean up this old receivable first” conversation with a higher probability of success than in March. Receivables that are open in March and April tend, in my experience, to be receivables you don’t collect until it’s time to ship next summer/fall if then.
 
Finally, this was a busy, upbeat, exciting show. But it wasn’t that way, like in some previous Vegas shows, because of people who snuck in for the vibe or companies thrown out for various amusing behaviors. It was like that because the snowboard business community was excited to be there, to see new products, and to do business. That’s good to see.
 
My Quandary
 
Well this is kind of a problem. I’ve gone and written an unabashedly upbeat, glowing and positive article about the show and the prospects for the industry it seems to represent. This is going to ruin my reputation. I’ve got to complain about something.
 
Ah! The signage sucked. You couldn’t find your way around. I spend the whole time looking at the damn map and even that didn’t help. I’m going to call SIA President David Ingemie and asked him how come that was so screwed up.
 
Oh dear. Turns out they did it on purpose. David points out that the aisles and signage in a department store are laid out to “encourage” you to see more product in more locations, and they did the same thing at the show. He did agree that the restroom signs needed to be a little easier to see. I imagine I’m not the only one who noticed that problem.
 
Okay, I guess I might as well drink the Kool Aid here. I shouldn’t be this easily seduced by one good show, but I have some hope that a confluence of events in retailers, resorts, and brands may mark a turning point for snowboarding and the winter sports business in general. Perhaps business cycles are longer than we think. We didn’t just need to consolidate, but to get over and come out of it. Ski and snowboard had to, in some sense, come together. The large brands had to solidify their market positions to make room for smaller ones to emerge again. Retailers had to start and do better business and those that didn’t had to go away. Resorts had to give their customers a better experience.
 
The retail numbers don’t necessarily support this kind of perspective- at least not yet- but in a soft economy, I’m willing to see the glass half full instead of half empty.

 

 

The End of the Beginning; Observations from Glitter Gulch

/0 Comments/in , , /by

“Now, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

Overall, Vegas showed signs of being the end of the beginning of the snowboard industry’s consolidation process. 
 
Which is convenient, since I’ve always wanted to use that quote. The first person who identifies the person being quoted by calling or e-mailing me, the approximate date of the quote, and the event being referred to will be acknowledged along with their business in the next Market Watch.
 
In Vegas, the industry shows some signs of stabilizing, but it has a long ways to go. There were few or no new exhibiting snowboard companies, but not less by my count. Prices were up, down or unchanged depending on who you talked with. But not too much either way. Careful cash management has become more important than taking market share. With a couple of exceptions, senior managers seemed to feel that they had or could get enough cash to do what they needed to do, but not what they would like to do. Significant product innovations were rare. I saw only one new step-in system. Making a profit is still tough. Retailers seemed more deliberate perhaps because there were fewer choices to consider.
 
The Good News
 
The good news starts with SIA’s retail audit, where a big increase in hard goods sales by units and dollars was reported through the end of December in both chain and specialty shops. Especially in boards, the dollar increases were generally more than the unit increases. This translates into an increase in the price per unit at retail. It’s about time. Over the same period, snowboard apparel sales plunged, but that’s more a reflection of last season’s unsustainable growth rate and poor weather than of a problem with apparel.
 
The chaotic over supply that resulted from companies producing with the goal of achieving hopelessly optimistic projections, to keep factories running, or to take market share from competitors is gone, bludgeoned by the sacred sledgehammer of financial reality. That’s not to say that over capacity isn’t still an issue (see “The Bad News” below), only that the conditions that lead to forty dollar wholesale board prices are pretty much gone. At least they are gone until confidence in Chinese production quality increases, but that’s a discussion for another time.
 
The next thing I noticed was that all the booths looked more or less the same as they each looked last year. Oh, they’d been renovated or dressed up and rearranged, but they were basically the same. Let me explain why this is really good news.
 
When an industry consolidates, managers have to start running their businesses differently if they are going to be counted among the survivors. The cornerstone of these changes in management perception and focus are financial. There’s a seminal moment when the realization hits home that all these cool marketing things would be great, but if we do them, we won’t be around to enjoy the benefits. At that moment, the competitive environment begins to get a little more rational and the tendency for new companies to enter starts to decline. We’re there.
 
I’ve always looked forward at Vegas to walking around to see who had thought up “the next snowboard.” Usually, it was some strange contraption that might have made technical sense but had no chance from a marketing perspective. It wasn’t there this year. But there was one new board with an unusual technical innovation- a double flex.
 
Nobody I talked to had ridden it, but the consensus was that it made conceptual sense and might work. It’s important that it wasn’t just a board being introduced by somebody who wanted to be involved in snowboarding. It appeared to be the result of cautious development and careful market analysis and timing. Based on the background of the owner, I expect there’s enough capital behind it and the risk has been carefully thought out. I’ll bet they wouldn’t have introduced it two years ago even if it was ready given the market conditions that existed then. In other words, it’s a rational product introduction based on a competitive advantage which the owner believe can be validated in the market. He doesn’t care if he’s cool. 
 
That’s another positive indication of a market that is starting to behave rationally.
 
I say this every year, but the show was more businesslike than the previous year. As long as there continues to be free beer in the booths after the show closes, I can stand it. I say that every year too.
 
At least partly due to SIA’s good work on the subject and its decision to cancel the Snow Show, the buy sell cycle is progressing more smoothly. There was plenty of business done in Vegas, but it wasn’t, and didn’t have to be, done in a frantic way. In the first place, it’s a lot easier to choose between fifty brands than three hundred. In addition, brands and retailers are doing more work before Vegas. More retailers, planning to carry most of the brands they carried last year, are coming to Vegas to confirm decisions they have largely made- not to begin and conclude the information gathering process in five frantic days like they use to.
 
The final piece of good news is that there are 60 million people in the United States between the ages of 5 and 20, over half of who have not yet moved into adolescence. There’s plenty of room for snowboarding to grow. We’ve also got the attention of every big company in the country with a brand name, because they know that if they can’t get the loyalty of some piece of this group, their future success is doubtful. I guess that’s good news…..maybe.
 
The Bad News
 
When a consolidation happens, profits drop. That drop can be temporary or permanent. I am not going to conclude that it’s permanent in the snowboarding industry- the demographics alone suggest there’s some money to be made- but the same handicap that has kept skiing among the financially disabled has the potential to do the same to snowboarding.
 
That handicap is too much production capacity. There are always more than enough soft goods factories. If every ski and snowboard factory in North America closed, there would still be enough manufacturing capability in Europe to supply all the skis and snowboards the world wants. Hell, there might be enough if all the plants outside of Austria closed. I don’t expect our excess capacity problem to go away.
 
The capacity problem is reflected in the actions of the (mostly) ski companies from Europe trying to establish their snowboard businesses in the United States. Unfortunately, I observed in Vegas some tendency on the part of European owners to interfere with the marketing direction the U.S. managers are trying to set, and I suspect that will be to the detriment of the brands’ success here.   Oh well, I’ve seen lots of U. S. companies have the same problems when they tried to move into Europe. People who live in glass houses….
 
The point, however, is that these companies, with tens of millions of dollars invested in snowboard and ski production equipment, really, really, really want to make product to keep those factories running. They look at the whole market from a production, rather than a market, perspective. I have some personal experience telling companies with factories that the market required less product. Their first priority is simply not brand positioning- it’s maintaining and increasing production.
 
Then there’s the fact that we’ve still got fifty plus brands competing in North America. It’s too many. I still believe snowboarding can support more brands than skiing, but not fifty. I expected to get to Vegas and see fewer.
 
The big brands, and the brands owned by big companies, making money or not, are likely to survive. They either have a balance sheet or an access to capital that insures it. The small brands that have pursued a consistent strategy and niche also have a reasonable chance to be successful. They all report anticipated sales increases consistent with their historical growth. It’s potentially a breakthrough year for them because if a retailer wants any product from a smaller brand, there aren’t many choices. Of course, sometimes the managers at these brands can be a little disingenuous when they talk to me, but I asked the same question in enough different ways that I think they mean it. I hope so.
 
As usual, being big or having a market niche seems to be the way to succeed. It’s tougher when you’re in the middle either by size or brand positioning.
 
In Las Vegas, I saw light at the end of the consolidation tunnel, but land mines on the cave floor. The demographics suggest a huge opportunity, but everybody wants a piece of it. Knowing who your customer is has gotten tougher as what use to be distinct specialty markets overlap and many new customers are as interested in fashion as they are in the sport. I am reminded of what happened to skateboarding the last time it got respectable. The kids dumped it because it wasn’t cool.

 

 

Benefiting from Recent Industry Initiatives; It’s Up to Each of You

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By now, you should all have seen SIA’s study “Growing the Snow Sports Industry” and NSAA’s growth model for the resort business. They don’t claim that any industry initiative by a trade association is the salvation of the winter sports industry’s issues of participation and profitability. They say, if not exactly this way, “It’s up to each of you.”

From the 20,000 foot level, where the oxygen is thin, here’s what they said, how you can use their work, (whether you’re a brand, a retailer, or a resort) and why it’s such a hard thing to do well.
Industry Initiatives
SIA commissioned Growing the Snow Sports Industry: Marketing Analysis and Strategy for Breaking Down the Barriers. NSAA created a growth model for the snow resort industry based at least in part the conclusions of the SIA study, which you should also make sure you see.
SIA and NSAA did not position their studies as “industry initiatives.” They didn’t make any claims that their programs offered industry wide solutions. They acknowledged that previous industry initiatives hadn’t worked, or hadn’t had the funding and support to be implemented consistently over a long enough time frame.
They said, and this is the most important thing they said, here are some facts and ideas-It’s all up to you. We can’t fix the industry’s problems, but we hope we can give you some guidance and support as you do it.   They are exactly right.
I think that industry initiatives only work, or appear to work, when you don’t need them. When there is lots of growth, lots of money and less competitive pressure, everything seems to be working. In fact what’s going on is that consumer demand and cash flow can cover up a lot of shortcomings in a company’s strategic position.    When that changes, focus often becomes internal and understandably a bit more selfish. Support for industry initiatives, both in terms of time and money, is harder to come by.
In any event, in a consolidating or mature industry there is no rising tide to lift all boats. It’s up to each company to find their market position and respond to the particular needs of their carefully identified customers. The individual companies in addressing their particular circumstances can almost certainly put the resources that might be committed to an industry initiative to better use. That’s just business- in any industry.
What They Said
NSAA proposed focusing on two things; getting a 6% annual increase in beginners and increasing the conversion rate of beginners from 15 to 25 percent with the goal of increasing skier [their word] visits from 52 million to 67.2 million by in 2015. In their words, “The success of this formula for growth…lies not in any national campaign, but rather in the dedicated efforts of individual area operators consistently implementing achievable trial and conversion goals that make sense for their resorts.”
They go on to say that, “…this was developed with input parameters that reflect the national environment. At the regional level and at the level of the individual resort, the underlying dynamics of the Model change and, therefore, the specific goals also change…The great strength of NSAA’s approach toward growing the industry over the next 15 years is that it encourages individual self-gain and entrepreneurial spirit to achieve collective benefits” (Quoted from the September 2000 issue of SAM magazine, page 10. NSAA’s Model for Growth: What It Is, and What It Is Not. By Nolan Rosall, RRC Associates and Michael Berry, President, National Ski Areas Association).
Good strategy is the process of defining where you are, envisioning where you want to be and when, and filling in the time in between with appropriate tactics.   That’s what NSAA is suggesting to each of its individual members.
The SIA study recommends that each member company take steps appropriate to its specific circumstances and opportunities. Like NSAA, the SIA study is meant to support its members, not kick off any national campaign.
It starts by stating that “We must:”
  • Develop a unified understanding of the marketing problems and opportunities
  • Identify the market segments that hold the greatest “acceleration potential”
  • Focus our marketing resources on those productive audience segments
  • Apply those resources in an integrated, efficient manner
All true. For any business in any industry any time and I wouldn’t expect anybody to be even slightly surprised by that. The devil, as usual, is in the details.
They went on to “explode the industry myths that bind us to the obsolete remedies of the past.” Simplified, the five myths are:
  • That participants aspire to be “extreme.” They don’t. They are in it for the wholesome, lifestyle activities.
  • That the dominant barrier to increased participation is increased cost. It’s more complex than that and involves time, quality of experience and proficiency.
  • That we have a big opportunity with underserved populations who have never been on the hill. Maybe not. They have to be lured to the slopes, sold on winter vacations and cold weather activities, and convinced to adopt an activity their peers don’t participate in.
  • There’s a single advertising message that will work for the whole industry. There isn’t. The consumer base is too diverse.
  • That awareness of various “make it easier” technologies like shaped skis and of the technology’s benefits are high. Nope. Most are unaware of its existence or benefits.
After that we’ve got six key findings.
  • There is a strong relationship between proficiency, enthusiasm, participation and sales.
  • The industry is bleeding new triers and participants of low proficiency.
  • The biggest opportunity is in reactivating lapsed participants and upgrading light and moderate users.
  • New technology can produce marketing leverage.
  • Children can be a barrier or a motivator to increased participation.
  • Introducing consumers to skiing/boarding young and keeping their loyalty can have an exponential impact on revenue.
Based on this, they suggested a “new” approach to the market that included:
·         Looking at snow market as the sum of many segments- not as a mass market.
·         Communicating the brand snow sports in terms relevant to each of these customer segments.
·         Allocating marketing resources based on the potential value of each segment.
They go on to suggest more specific strategies and tactics for retailers, suppliers and resorts.
I’m sure most of us recognize that this “new” approach is old. It represents a pretty traditional market strategy that is new to winter sports only because it was, historically, unnecessary for success or, more recently, resisted. Why is that?
Déjà vu All Over Again
It doesn’t matter what industry we talk about. In periods of difficult transitions, all companies tend to react the same way. Specifically,
·         They do what they perceive to be in their own (short term?) best interest. They don’t ask, “How can we help the industry?” when they are dealing with gut renching issues of change and survival.
·         They resist change and tend to do “more of the same.” Change is uncomfortable and most of us dislike stepping out of our comfort zones.
·         They have a hard time just recognizing the new environment they are operating in and frequently don’t until they are slapped upside the head.
·         They focus on tactics that are responsive to short term pressures rather than identifying and reacting to critical strategic issues.
·         Typically, an outside change agent (the bank, big customers, a consultant or new CEO) is required to motivate the change process.
Before I’d ever heard of a snowboard, I’d worked with companies in banking, pharmaceuticals, light manufacturing and retail where this was the case. I can assure you it’s true in snowboarding and in all of winter sports as well.
Many of the people making skis and running resorts have been doing what they do for a long time. There’s a tremendous amount of inertia and continuity in the industry. With such long histories, established relationships, and common perceptions firmly entrenched in a comfort zone, it can be difficult to make the kinds of changes the industry required.
Those of us who got into action sports through snowboarding have the same issues, though perhaps not to such an extreme if only because we haven’t been involved as long. Like skiing in another era, snowboarding could rely in its early years on the enthusiasm of its youthful participants to overcome issues of expense, poor facilities, lousy equipment and inconvenience. If, as an industry, we didn’t handle our consolidation as well as we might have, we can plead that it happened too quickly to react to, and we’d be partly right.
Now, we’re getting older (which is fine given the alternative). Larger corporations, most of who are also in the ski business, dominate snowboarding. The snowboard, ski and resort industries increasingly have common issues, interests, and relationships.
What You Can Do
One of those common interests is making money, which has been a hard thing to do for a lot of organizations. I know we’re also interested in the lifestyle, and the product, and the experience, and supporting the sport, but if there isn’t enough money made, we won’t be here to do that. Everybody reading this knows somebody who’s committed to snowboarding, use to be in the business, and isn’t anymore as a result of financial issues.
SIA and NSAA have now provided their members with a justification and a framework, rigorously validated through actual data, for changing the way they do business in response to new competitive conditions. But they can’t (and have learned they can only get in trouble if they try to) do it for you.
That’s all they can do. A basic blue print is in your hands.   Adapt it for your organization and go and do it. You can’t “fix” the industry anymore than SIA and NSAA can. But you can sure take a shot at fixing your piece of it. Bottom line? Marketing, and customer identification and segmentation, not discounted season passes, longer terms for retailers, and discounting at retail that starts in November are the answer if we have the patience and longer-term perspective to do it consistently. Step out of your comfort zone.

 

 

SIA 1996; It’s Just Business

/0 Comments/in , /by

Business. It was all business.

 
Well, maybe not quite all. The ladies and gentlemen at Mervin Manufacturing were dressed in all white outfits (they claimed not to be angels) and Mike Olsen was shooting money out of a cannon at irregular intervals.   But the snowboard side of this year’s SIA show in Las Vegas showed that the industry is maturing. There were the usual crowds and noise and excitement. But there was also, especially among the larger companies coming to dominate the industry, a more subdued sense of purpose and focus.
 
They weren’t there to have fun; they were in Vegas to do business. 
 
You felt it as soon as you saw the booths. Many were the size of my house, except my house doesn’t have a second story . Now I know why Morrow did a public offering. To pay for their booth.
 
Larger, sleeker, cleaner, sophisticated, with more controlled access and private rooms for meetings and order writing. Less beer being consumed during show hours. No companies thrown out for use of controlled substances. To put it succinctly, snowboard industry leaders had booths that looked, well, like ski company booths; except they were busy.
 
This was the year where it seemed that the ten or so companies that control 70 plus percent of the US snowboard business heaved a collective sigh of relief. They knew snowboarding was here to stay. They knew they were going to have a prominent part in it. They realized that the small, undercapitalized companies not being run like businesses would disappear or, at worst, be like fleas on a dog; occasional and momentary distractions.
 
Their focus was on taking market share before the competitive situation solidified and establishing their positions against the other large players.
 
Their tools were complete product lines, payment terms, discounts, pricing, reliable delivery and customer service coupled with marketing and promotional programs only they could afford. Retailers, nervous after late deliveries, poor and/or late snow in much of the US, and left over inventory didn’t have to have their arms twisted-much. Their interests, and those of the Burton/Sims/Ride/Morrow/Mervin snowboard juggernaut generally coincided.
 
Now under these circumstances, you might expect that the size of the show would have stabilized or (be still my heart) even declined a little. Nope. Booths spilled out into the lobby and took over the meeting rooms on the second floor. I don’t know how much of the growth was the result of companies taking more square meters, but I’d estimate there were a couple of dozen new snowboard companies. Or at least people with boards in booths hoping to become companies. The directory lists about 300 snowboard brands in total.
 
My conversations with them tended to be the same as with other new companies last year. They had limited capital and product lines, no competitive strategy, and couldn’t explain how they were going to differentiate themselves. If I hear “We’re closer to the market than our competition” one more time, I’ll shoot myself (I shouldn’t say that. I’ll be dead at the next trade show.). I didn’t have the perception that these companies were writing any significant orders, though of course you can’t expect anybody at the show to say “We’re doomed” when you ask them how it’s going.
 
There didn’t seem to be much change in board design or construction. What I did notice was the size of the line of some of the players. Between the Ride, Mercury, Liquid and 5150 brands, Ride, if I counted right, had 84 boards. Let’s see a sales rep put all those in his van. Graphics were simpler and colors varied but muted. Yellow seemed popular. As companies go mainstream, the goal of graphics seems to be not offending anybody.
 
Traditional bindings offered incremental improvements. The hot product had to be the step in bindings. In addition to K2’s Clicker, Switch and Device, Wave Rave, Blax and Marker/DNR had models to sell. Burton didn’t have one, but was taking orders anyway. That’s market power.
 
Over 300 companies were listed in the show directory as offering snowboarding apparel. The statistics I’ve seen indicate that Burton and Columbia by themselves account for 50 percent of sales in the US, making it pretty clear that many of these companies have their work cut out for them if they are going to succeed.
 
One thing I didn’t see at the show was the usual number of representatives from Japanese companies frantically looking for new snowboard product lines. This seems consistent with current conventional wisdom about oversupply and general competitive conditions in Japan. As discussed below, it has critical implications for the viability of a large number of US snowboard hard and soft good companies.
 
Essentially, what happened was that companies were pushed down the feeding chain. Larger companies tried to require bigger commitments from retailers, pushing out second tier brands. These brands sold to stores they had not previously done business with to try and maintain their volume. The smaller companies were pushed out of these stores, sometimes leaving them with no place to go.   
 
What was seen at the show has been confirmed in the six weeks or so since it ended. I’ve had calls from perhaps half a dozen smaller apparel companies who did not write the anticipated orders at the shows, and who’s Japanese orders have been significantly reduced or are not yet received. At least one larger apparel company has picked up an additional distributor in Japan because of the reduction in orders from its existing distributor. Where orders have been placed, there’s increasing reluctance to provide the historically favorable financing terms of 50% down and 50% sight letter of credit.
 
In the US hard goods reps for other than the major companies are having a hard time getting orders, and personal relationships appear to be the key factor in determining their success. 
 
Retailers are cautious in their ordering. Often they are already committed to the major suppliers. In addition, some have more stock than anticipated left from last year.
 
A new factor seems to be retailers perception of product availability. Historically, companies produced only what they could sell in the preseason, and retailers were confronted with an inability to get reorders. Late season availability was not a problem last year. Late deliveries and poor snow conditions in much of the country meant retailers were getting called by snowboard companies with product to sell at attractive prices. Combined with the increased availability of quality domestic manufacturing, retailers seem comfortable in holding back some of their open to buy for later in the year.
 
An industry consolidation does not start with a bang at a particular moment in time. However, the SIA show this year made is absolutely clear that the long awaited consolidation isn’t just starting. It’s in full swing.

 

 

SIA Member Services; Run Your Business Better: No Charge

/0 Comments/in , /by

I think the first time I heard about SIA it was when somebody asked me to write a check for membership. “What are we going to get out of this membership?” I asked. “We have to be a member to go to the show,” was the less than enthusiastic endorsement. So I signed the check.

Turns out there’s more to it than that. SIA offers its members no charge services that, if utilized correctly, will add to your bottom line. The mystery is why so few members utilize them. Maybe a little publicity will help.
 
The Credit Services Program gives companies a picture of the payment status and credit quality of retailers they are doing business with. Produced seven times a year (January through May, August and October), this report shows the amount and status of all reported debt more than 60 days past due. It includes not only information supplied by SIA members, but by the credit associations of other action sports trade groups.
 
The report I received in August was about an inch and half thick. The only cost to participate is the time it takes to complete a form which shows the name and address of the account and the amount 60 days or more past due. There’s room for a short comment on the account status.
 
The information is reported by a member number. The name of the reporting company is not disclosed except to Riemer Reporting Service, which assembles the data.
 
Let’s say you’re doing about $2,000,000 in business annually (an estimate of the mean revenue of SIA members). Your business continues to be highly seasonal, and your customers are demanding better payment terms. SIA reports that overdue accounts represented 4.8% of sales at wholesale, or $96,000 for your typical SIA member.
 
Not all of that will ultimately be uncollectable. But after taxes, a lot of businesses are lucky to drop 4.8% to the bottom line. Better management of your bad debt expense can easily be the difference between a profit and a loss.
 
The in season cash flow affects are harder to illustrate, but may be more important. As I’ve said in this space before, companies pay their bills with cash, not with profit. A lot of snowboard industry companies live hand to mouth during the period between the arrival of product and collection of receivables.
 
What happens if, on average, your collection period goes from 60 to 90 days? How much more money will you have to invest in the business? Where will you get it? What will it cost?
 
Just for fun, let’s say you can borrow money at 10% annually.  To carry $2,000,000 in receivables an extra 30 days costs you about $16,700. The calculation is oversimplified, but you get the picture.
 
SIA’s Credit Services Program is part of an effective program to reduce your bad debt exposure. Checking credit references is important, as is your history with the account. But nobody ever handed out bad credit references, and conditions change from year to year. If by participating you can sell more product to accounts that pay, and pay on time, isn’t it worth the few minutes it takes to fill out and send in the form? You bet.
 
Often, public relations doesn’t make it on our radar screens, though when somebody says “advertising and promotion” we perk up and get out our check books. To paraphrase Clauswitz, public relations is advertising and promotion carried on by other means. Working with SIA, you can do some good public relations work that’s inexpensive to free.
 
Sort of my accident I got my hands on SIA’s New Products, Best Values publication. This annual publication, distributed to hundreds of media people and anybody else who wants it, gives each company a chance to briefly describe its latest products. Having a listing is free, but only 30 board companies participated this year. Since the show, SIA has distributed about 1,200 hundred copies.
 
We spend six or seven thousand dollars on a Transworld ad that we wonder if anybody is going to notice, but we won’t take the time to get some information in the hands of people who are specifically requesting it.
 
Call SIA and get their free booklet on press relations. Tell them you want to participate in New Products, Best Values. Then call them again and ask what you should be doing about public relations and how you can do it. The information and advice you can get for free would cost you thousands of bucks from a public relations firm.
 
Finally, there’s the Cost of Doing Business and Compensation and Benefits Survey. It’s just as expensive as all these other SIA services; you got to participate.
 
Inaugurated only in 1994, this survey is focused on developing accurate financial information on the snow sports industry. Only participants receive the report. The submitting company is known only to an outside accounting firm that receives the information. The tabulated data is released only in composite form. It shows expenses as a percentage of sales, not in hard dollar terms. In other words, participants are well protected from disclosure of proprietary information.
 
The data is broken down by small and large companies (with $5 million being the cut off) and by hard and soft goods. Right now, limited participation is making the information less valuable than it will ultimately be. Only 82 companies (out of an SIA membership of 850) are participating, but less than 20 are snowboard or snowboard related. SIA is prepared to run the data for snowboard companies separately as soon as there’s enough participation to make the numbers meaningful. 
 
There are two basic reasons to participate. First, it will let you know how you’re doing compared to other companies, highlighting what you’re doing right and where you can look to improve. Second, it can be very valuable in dealing with your bank or other financing sources.
 
For most industries, banks have “common sized” financial data that allows them to compare your company to others in its industry. Not so with snowboarding; until now. This kind of data is something of a security blanket for bankers unfamiliar with an industry. It will allow you to explain how your company is doing compared to similar businesses. The fact that you even have this data and have considered its implications will improve your credibility, giving you and your banker a common point of reference.
 
Using SIA’s services and information correctly will improve the way you manage and finance your business. Do yourself and the industry a favor; participate. Fill out the forms and send them back.