PPR Earnings Release and Volcom- Exit Strategies for Core Brands

/7 Comments/in , , /by

This article was occasioned by PPR’s release of its quarterly results, but that’s not really what it’s about. When PPR, or Decker’s or VF or Jarden releases earnings we’re interested in what happened mostly because we’d like to know what’s going on with Volcom, or Sanuk, or Reef, or K2/Ride. We never find out very much. 

Volcom is in PPR’s Sports & Lifestyle Division which includes Puma and Volcom (including Electric). Puma did 821 million Euro in the March 31 quarter and “other” brands in that division, which means Volcom, did 65.6 million Euro. That’s about $87 million at the March 31 exchange rate.
 
Maybe ten days ago, I wrote about Nike’s quarter, indicating it was kind of a waste of time for me to analyze Nike’s financials. Instead, I tried to focus on some comments Nike’s CEO made about sources of product innovation. The goal was to try and provide a little perspective that maybe helped smaller companies in action sports (or maybe it should be called active lifestyles?) think about how to compete and succeed in the eight hundred pound gorilla era. I think that approach is valid not just for NIKE, but for all the large companies that have bought up companies in our industry.
 
PPR management made clear in the conference call that they were disappointed in Puma’s results, and that they were working hard to improve them. At the time of PPR’s acquisition, there was speculation that Volcom might help Puma become “cool” and that we could see a Volcom shoe line created with Puma’s help.
 
At the time of the acquisition by PPR, Volcom was a company that was very strong in its market niche but, in my analysis, didn’t have anywhere to go. It was so closely identified with its niche it didn’t have the strength to break out of it. PPR, with about 4 billion Euros of revenue in the recently completed quarter, and the owner of such luxury brands as Gucci, Bottega Veneta and Yves Saint Laurent, didn’t buy Volcom for its 65 million Euros of revenue (1.6% of PPR’s total) and its growth potential in the “core” market. They didn’t buy it just to help Puma or to do Volcom shoes.
 
What do they have in mind? What do any of these behemoths have in mind?
 
At the most obvious level, PPR saw what VF has done with Vans and The North Face in its action sports segment and the associated growth rates and said, “We want a piece of that too.” If nothing else, you might expect that PPR will be interested in additional acquisitions in the space, perhaps in competition with VF.
 
Neither Nike, nor PPR, nor VF is interested in a brand that has no potential beyond the “core” market. It would just be too small to temp them. When the PPR/Volcom deal went down, I suggested, only partly in jest, that maybe PPR would expand Volcom into upper end boutiques. I (probably) don’t see any product collaboration between Volcom and Gucci. But I’ve watched brands like Nixon get some traction in that upper end market with some of their higher priced product, and I just wonder what’s possible. With PPR’s help, could Volcom open some stores that carried some new classes of Volcom product? Go and see what WESC is doing. 
 
A brand, like Volcom, that’s secure in its niche and roots has the potential to grow out of that niche without confusing its customers and destroying its market. It’s not a sure thing, and it’s not easy. It’s management’s challenge every day.
 
For better or worse, we created that opportunity when we chose to pursue growth across markets and expand distribution. We created a much larger market, but one we couldn’t take advantage of on our own.
 
Large, successful companies in action sports are small, inexperienced players in the broader fashion business. As Volcom discovered, even going public and shoring up your balance sheet doesn’t solve that problem.
 
I’m sitting here trying to think of companies who have smashed through that barrier without help. I’m not doing very well. Everybody who is thought to have the potential to go from core to fashion seems to be acquired.
 
That, I guess, is the strategic point I started to think about as I read PPR’s quarterly report and looked for information on Volcom. A successful exit strategy for an action sports brand owner, in general, will require a revenue size that is proof of concept and is big enough to be interesting to a possible buyer. There also has to be an indication that you can hope, with the right support, to move past the core market and into the much larger fashion space. You can see that’s an issue for hard goods brands.
 
In the future, then, when I review the reports of Nike, VF, Decker, Jarden, VF and any other big companies involved in our industry,  I’ll try and pull our trends and ideas that are more interesting than the change in the current ratio. More fun for me to write. Hopefully, more valuable for you to read.         

 

 

Globe’s Half Yearly Results

/2 Comments/in /by

Globe actually released these back in February. As far as I can tell everybody, including me, missed them. There’s never a lot of information in these Australian six month results. Still, I thought a brief look might be in order. You can download the report yourself if you want to see it.

Globe’s revenues fell 8% from $46.4 million Australian Dollars (all numbers in Australian Dollars) in the six month ended December 31, 2010 to $42.7 million for the six months ended December 31, 2011. Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell from $1.9 million to $1.5 million and net profit was down from $924,000 to $761,000.
Those numbers include, “…net $1.0 million in other income relating to proceeds from the settlement of a legal case.” Obviously without those proceeds EBITDA is a million bucks lower and net income is down net of the tax affect by something less than a million.
The company reduced its selling, distribution and administrative expenses by 7.1% to $11.9 million. 
They note that the decline in sales was “…largely due to the strengthening of the Australian Dollar.” In constant currency, sales were flat. The further note that, “The underlying profitability of the group versus the prior corresponding period is most significantly affected by downward pressure on gross margins as a consequence of changes in the sales mix.” I can’t tell what the actual gross margins were and there’s no information on the specifics of the change in the sales mix. 
They do provide us with some information by geographic region. Europe was the best performing segment, with revenues rising 9.4% from $6.96 million to $7.6 million. North America fell 17.6% from $25.9 million to $21.4 million. Australasia revenues rose 2% from $13.4 million to $13.6 million. Those are as reported numbers- not constant currency.
I tracked down the balance sheet from December 31, 2010 to compare it to the December 31, 2011 one. Cash has declined from $12.4 million to $8.9 million. Receivables rose 2.3% 17.7% from $13.2 million to $13.5 million. Inventories were up at well, rising from $12.4 million to $14.6 million.
There’s no discussion of any of those items, but with sales down you’d generally like to see receivables and inventory falling as well. The inventory increase is pretty significant, but of course there may be some timing issues or other stuff we don’t know about.
Globe has no long term debt, and its current liabilities have fallen from a year ago by 10.2% to $12.7 million. Almost all of that is due to the decline in trade and other current payables, which I like to see.
The current ratio has improved a bit to 2.95 times from a year ago and total liabilities to equity is only 0.37, slightly better than the 0.39 of a year ago.
For the second half, CEO Matt Hill says, “…we anticipate continued stability for the Group and expect profitability to be largely consistent with the first half, excluding the settlement proceeds.” They expect some of their longer term product and sales investments to start to pay off in the 2013 financial year.
Well, that’s all I’ve got because that’s all they gave me to work with. Globe (and lots of other companies) needs Europe to not head south economically. Equally important to Globe, they need to recreate some sales momentum in the North American market.       

 

 

Tilly’s IPO Moving Forward; Another S1 Amendment is Filed

/6 Comments/in , /by

Not much is different in this filing, but we do get a few additional pieces of information. You can review what I wrote about their initial filing last July here. I updated that analysis in March of 2012 when they released their numbers for the year. My opinion hasn’t changed and I think the analysis is still valid.

What we learn from the newly amended S1 is that the share price of the offering is expected to be between $11.50 and $13.50. They expect to raise about $86.4 million (assuming a $12.50 a share price). Of that amount $84 million will go to the existing shareholders and only $2.4 million will be available to be utilized in the business. Here’s how the filing puts it:

“The principal purposes of this offering are to obtain capital to pay all undistributed cumulative earnings to date to the current shareholders of World of Jeans & Tops [the former corporate name of Tilly’s], obtain additional capital, create a public market for our common stock and facilitate our future access to the public equity markets….We expect to use $84.0 million of the net proceeds from this offering to pay in full the principal amount of the notes, as well as any accrued interest. Therefore, our stockholders immediately following this offering, who were also the shareholders of World of Jeans & Tops prior to termination of its “S” Corporation status, will receive most of the net proceeds from the sale of shares offered by us.”
 
When the offering is done, there will be Class A and Class B common stock. Purchasers of the offering will get the Class A, which has one vote per share. The Class B common stock has ten votes per share.
 
As a result, “The Shaked and Levine family entities [current owners of Tilly’s and the only ones who can own the Class B shares] will control approximately 96% of the total voting power of our outstanding common stock following the completion of this offering. As a result, the Shaked and Levine family entities will be able to control the outcome of all matters submitted to a vote of our stockholders…”
 
Tilly’s numbers for last year, as I discussed in my March article, were strong. It will be interesting to watch how the offering is received. 

 

 

Nike and Their Approach to Product Innovation. It’s Not All About Team Riders

/4 Comments/in /by

Nike recently came out with their 10Q for the quarter ended February 29th. I looked through it, read the conference call transcript, and sat down with the intention of doing my usual analysis.

Then I thought to myself, “Who am I kidding?” You want my analysis? They keep growing, make a lot of money, and their balance sheet is as imposing as the Death Star in Star Wars, but in a good way and with no exhaust vent for Luke to fire a proton torpedo into. There. Analysis done. You can see the 10Q here if you want to dig a little deeper.

What I want to focus on instead are President and CEO Mark Parker’s comments on how they constantly search for innovation and new products to “…create opportunities for everyday athletes to connect with NIKE, Inc. and each other around the world.”
 
He goes on to say:
 
“Collaboration is essential to how we innovate and grow. At NIKE, Inc., that always starts with insights from athletes, from the elite competitor to the everyday athlete. And it expands from there to include partners inside and outside our industry who inspire new ways of thinking; our retail partners, our manufacturing partners, universities, technology companies, NGOs, entrepreneurs and many more.”
“In our business, it’s collaboration and the ability to consistently innovate that create momentum and fuel long-term growth.”
 
Interestingly enough, last night I watched Sector 9 President and Co-Founder Steve Lake’s speech at the Transworld Snowboard Conference. Steve talked about constantly trying new things, reinventing his company every five years or so, and never standing still. Sector 9 probably isn’t quite $20 plus billion in revenue yet, but I bet he knows exactly what Mike Parker means. Go watch his speech here.
 
For Nike and Sector 9, doing something different is a core value. Standing still is dangerous and taking no risks is the biggest risk of all. I’ve said that a time or two myself and can’t resist pointing it out.
 
What struck me about CEO Parker’s comments is how their search for input and new ideas doesn’t stop (indeed, it barely begins) with elites athletes. We, on the other hand, too often won’t even consider something our team riders don’t like. Yet team riders aren’t our customers, get the product for free, don’t have that much in common with our average customer in terms of the comparative skill level and frequency of participation and, it occurs to me, might even have a vested interest in product not evolving.
 
We state proudly that our companies are “rider driven,” typically meaning, in my experience, that team riders have a disproportionate say in product decisions.  It looks to me like Nike CEO Parker would disagree with that approach.
 
Please don’t even try to use, “Well, we don’t have the resources of Nike” as an excuse. The issue is the ingrained way of thinking in action sports. It’s spending too much time talking to too many people who we’ve known for too long and who tend to share and validate what we already think. And I am as guilty as you are. I try and remind myself of that so maybe I won’t do it quite as much.
 
Here’s a link to an article about a company that looks for breakthrough ideas by seeking out and listening to “freaks and geeks.” They got together a group of Brazilian transsexuals to try and find out about hair removal products. To me that makes perfect sense. Nike, by the way, is one of their clients.
 
Nike CEO Parker goes on to say, “We consistently refer to 3 key components in our ongoing success: product innovation, brand strength and premium distribution. That’s what drives out growth.”
 
I think I’ve made my point about sources of product innovation. I’ve got nothing to say about Nike’s brand strength, as that’s self-evident. But isn’t it interesting that Nike, a brand available pretty much everywhere, talks about premium distribution?
 
That’s because distribution doesn’t stand alone. If you’ve got innovative product and a strong brand, you can have premium distribution in places other people can’t.
 
 Distribution, in a word, isn’t just about where your product is, but how it got there. And critical product innovations can’t just come from team riders, or at least that what Nike thinks.

 

 

PacSun’s Year and Quarter; Progress, but Work Left to Do

/0 Comments/in /by

I want to start by focusing on some comments PacSun’s management made that are indicative, I think, of why this is a harder environment for most industry companies and especially for one that is working through a turnaround.

Strategies

Improving their merchandise assortment planning is not a new theme for PacSun. It’s something that CEO Gary Schoenfeld has been focused on since he joined the company. They use to send pretty much all the same inventory to all their stores at the same time. They say in their 10K (you can see the whole thing here):
 
“We are now grouping our stores into a number of store clusters based on customer segmentations, brand performance, differences in weather and demographics, among other characteristics. In conjunction with this clustering, we have changed our allocation strategies to distribute what we believe to be the right products to the right stores for the right customers.”
 
That’s a good thing. It’s important, they need to do it, and there’s a lot of benefit to be realized. Some years ago, it might have conferred a strategic advantage. Now, though some retailers no doubt do it better than others, it’s just the price of entry. It’s something you need to do well just to compete.
 
As you know, PacSun has been, and continues, to close stores; 38 in fiscal 2008, 40 in 2009, 44 in 2010, and 119 in 2011. That got them down to 733 stores at January 28th, the end of their fiscal year. In fiscal 2012, they expect to close an additional 100 to 120 stores. They expect the store closings this fiscal year to cost them $13 million, but to save $9 million a year annually after that. Pretty good return on investment.
 
Referring to the stores closed and being closed, they note, “The affected stores generate on average annual sales revenue of approximately $0.6 million as compared to our remaining stores, which generate approximately $1.1 million in average annual net sales. “
 
You can be a specialty retailer or a chain, but the days of low volume stores being profitable are mostly over and, as I wrote years ago, has been for a while. With distribution as broad as it is, you just can’t earn the margin you need to earn to keep a low volume store profitable. By the way, I’d love to hear from stores that are the exception to the rule. Tell me how you do it. Working for free doesn’t count.
 
Moving on, here’s who PacSun identifies as some of their competitors; “…Abercrombie & Fitch, Aéropostale, American Eagle Outfitters, The Buckle, Forever 21, H&M, Hollister, J.C. Penney, Kohl’s, Macy’s, Nordstrom, Old Navy, Target, Tilly’s, Urban Outfitters and Zumiez, as well as a wide variety of regional and local specialty stores.”
 
It’s not that I think they are wrong. In fact you might want to see the article I posted just yesterday which deals with this. But if in fact Penney and Target are serious competitors for PacSun, then what market are they in and how do they differentiate themselves? It’s not just PacSun that has this problem, but I’d say they have it worse than most right now. It’s a problem they are trying to solve. How?
Here’s what they say their mission is:
 
“Our mission is to be the favorite place for teens and young adults to shop in the mall. Our objective is to provide our customers with a compelling merchandise assortment and great shopping experience that together highlight a great mix of heritage brands, proprietary brands and emerging brands that speak to the action sports, fashion and music influences of the California lifestyle. We offer an assortment of apparel, accessories and footwear for young men and women designed to meet the fashion needs of our customers.”
 
Referring again to the article I published yesterday, the assortment strategy seems the same as Buckle or Kohl’s. Or Zumiez for that matter. What is the different thing you have to do (for any retailer) “…to be the favorite place for teens and young adults to shop in the mall.”?
 
Your Volcom product can’t be any better than the next retailer’s Volcom product can it? Does your strategy have to focus on making your proprietary brands better than the next retailer’s proprietary brands? CEO Schoenfeld said in their conference call that “…the biggest shift we are seeing in our business is growth in our emerging and proprietary brands, offset by declines in some of our key heritage brands.
 
Think of the implications of that, especially if you’re a brand other than a proprietary brand. Perhaps we see a reason here why so many brands are becoming retailers. Although I can also imagine that some of what PacSun calls heritage brands (brands they don’t own) might be a bit cautious in their relationship with PacSun right now as stores are closed and until their financial position begins to improve.
 
Numbers
 
Revenues for the fourth quarter ended January 28, 2012 were $234.2 million, down from $237.6 million in the same quarter the previous year. The loss in the quarter this year was $38.1 million compared to $35.2 million in the same quarter last year. The loss from continuing operations (ignoring stores being closed) was about the same in both quarters at $30.5 million.
 
For the year, sales of $834 million translated into a loss of $106.4 million. The previous year sales of $837 million produced a loss of $96.6 million. The loss from continuing operations also grew from $84.3 million to $90.6 million. Internet sales were 6% of sales in 2011 compared to 5% the two previous years.
 
The discontinued operations (stores closed or being closed) by themselves for the year had sales of $62.7 million and a gross profit margin of 17.6%. They generated a loss of $15.8 million.
 
49% of revenue was men’s apparel, 37% women’s and 14% accessories and footwear. Before 2007, non-apparel represented 30% of their revenues. But now they’ve reintroduced footwear into 425 of their stores, and they expect it to continue to grow.
 
Comparable store sales fell 0.6% compared to declines of 7.9%, 19.1%, and 4.7% in the three previous years.
Gross margin fell from 22.3% to 21.7% due in part to a fall in their merchandise margin from 46.9% to 46.7% and also due to deleveraging of occupancy costs. When your comparable store sales fall, but your costs for achieving those sales don’t, your gross margin goes down.
 
PacSun reduced their selling, general and administrative expenses from 32.2% of sales to 31.3% of sales, and are working to reduce them further in light of store closings. Since CEO Schoenfeld joined the company, consistent with the reduction in stores, they’ve eliminated three zone vice presidents, gone from 9 to 6 regional directions, and from 90+ to below 60 district managers.
 
The balance sheet is not as strong as it was a year ago. The current ratio has fallen from 2.11 to 1.58 and debt to total equity has risen from 0.87 times to 2.14 times. Much of the debt increase is the result of the money they raised last year in the form of long term debt.
 
Inventory was down about 7%, which you’d expect with store closings. It was flat on a comparable store basis, which you’d also expect as sales haven’t changed much. They note that there’s no liability from closed stores sitting in their inventory today. Their inventory reserve sat at $12.7 million at the end of the year, up from $5.7 million at the end of the previous year.
 
I had commented at the time of that long term debt transaction that they’d bought themselves some more time to implement their strategy, and I think that’s still a valid assessment. They expect their current sources of cash will be adequate “…to meet our operating and capital expenditure needs for the next twelve months,” as long as they don’t experience declines in same store sales like they had in 2009 or 2010 or further gross margin decline.
 
Let’s conclude with a conference call quote from CEO Schoenfeld. “I think we all believe that if we can execute it right, there’s a real future for PacSun. A lot of the branded business is done across department stores, and we think that as a specialty retailer, we have the opportunity to offer something different than what a department store offers.”
 
As indicated when we talked about strategies in the first part of this article, operating well, while critical, may not generate any kind of advantage. There are a lot of smart people running a lot of good businesses out there trying to do the same things to generate their own advantage. I also think that “offering something different” is a great idea, but I don’t know exactly what it’s going to be.
 
It will be tough to see how PacSun is going to do until after the dust settles from all the store closings, and I guess that takes us through this year and maybe a bit beyond. The question, I suppose, and not just for PacSun, is whether doing everything well is enough in the market and economy we’re in.

 

 

Trying to Think About the Junction of Retail, Brands and the Internet.

/5 Comments/in , , , /by

The more I think about it, the less I feel I know for sure. I know the internet and brick and mortar are changing each other, that brands are becoming retailers and retailers brands, that easy information and product availability is making most products commodities at some level, that brands are really pushing product extensions, and that consumers are making long term changes in their purchasing behavior. But stirring this soup of change just makes it cloudy. 

Yet we all have to be thinking about it, and I’ve had a few experiences in recent months that are at least helping with the thinking and, to my surprise, are turning out to be related. Why don’t I tell you about them and we’ll see if they turn out to be related for you too.
 
At the Mall
 
Bellevue Square is a large regional mall here in the Northwest. It’s anchored by a Nordstrom, Penney, and Macy.   I’m in it occasionally and usually take the time to walk through some of the retailers firmly in our industry to see if I can learn anything. For some reason, at my last visit I determined to make a list of those retailers and see just how long it was. Here’s the list I came up with:
 
7 For All Mankind
Abercrombie & Fitch
Aeropostale
American Eagle
Billabong
Buckle
Element
Forever 21
Helly Hansen
Hollister
Lidz
Lucky Brand
Lululemon
Oakley
PacSun
The North Face
True Religion
Vans
Zumiez
 
I didn’t include Nordstrom or Sketchers. Maybe I shouldn’t include Lululemon. There are a few other fashion retailers I might have added. I know the list is shorter if I include only committed action sports brands. Yet I think that would be deluding ourselves. Every store on this list tries to get at least some of the dollars from customers of the core action sports/youth culture market. And I’m sure they all sell on line.
 
That’s a lot of stores for one mall. Bluntly, I’m not sure there are enough market niches to go around especially given that there’s nobody on this list whose niche isn’t determined largely by advertising and promotion.
 
Buckle
 
Buckle, headquartered in Kearney, Nebraska (don’t ask me), has about 430 stores in 43 states and had revenue of $949 million in the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011. The first time I walked into a Buckle store, it had the action sports/youth culture vibe I was familiar with from various other industry stores. But there was something different, and I literally walked around for a minute or two trying to figure out what it was.
 
You know how most action sports retailers have fixtures, posters, and other promotional aids representing the brands they carry? Buckle, I realized, didn’t have as much of that as most retailers. If you look at the list of brands they carry at their web site, you’ll recognize many of the brands, but those brands don’t overwhelm the merchandising of the store. They kind of get equal billing with Buckle’s owned brands, which are not named Buckle.
 
PacSun carried and promoted the brands we’re all familiar with. Then they added their store brands as a way to generate some more margin dollars and to offer more price conscious customers a choice. The way they handled their private label felt tactical and financial- almost like an afterthought- rather than being part of a strategy. I think that choice, along with over expansion, poor merchandising, and a weak economy, was what got PacSun in trouble.
 
Now, PacSun is being more thoughtful in how they handle their mix of brands.  We learn in their recent filings that their mix is about 50/50 between private label and brands owned by others.
 
Buckle, on the other hand, has what I take to be a deliberate strategy of building its image based on all its brands combined- owned and bought from other brands. In their merchandising, there almost isn’t a distinction made between the two. Buckle is a retailer making itself into a brand (or maybe creating brands?) through this approach.
 
I have often thought of store label brands in terms of what percentage of revenues they could safely represent. Perhaps that was short sighted. Buckle’s premise seems to be that it’s the mix and merchandising of the brands that matters given the target customer; there’s no percentage that’s “too much” or “too little.”
 
I wonder if the day will ever come when we see a retailer that has created brands get enough traction with those owned brands to sell them to other retailers. Maybe internationally.
 
Kohl’s
 
I’d characterize Kohl’s as a discount department store with quite a broad array of merchandise (Here’s a link to their investor relations site, which is full of all kinds of good information). Among the brands they carry are Vans, Hawk, and Zoo York. I was struck by the good selection and attractive pricing. Interestingly, they’ve moved from 75% national brands and 25% “private and exclusive brands” in 2004 to 52% national brands and 48% “private and exclusive brands in 2010.” I guess Buckle isn’t the only store that has the idea of melding owned with national brands.
 
“Private” and “exclusive” brands are not the same thing, and it’s important to understand the difference. A private brand is just what you expect; created, owned and controlled by Kohl’s. An exclusive brand is not owned by Kohl’s, but is available exclusively in Kohl’s stores. The Hawk brand is such a brand for Kohl’s.
 
I noticed a poster in the store advertising the Hawk brand, but featuring a skater who was not Tony Hawk. Makes sense to me. That’s what you do when you’re trying to give a brand credibility and longevity beyond an individual.
 
Target has the same kind of deal with Shaun White. Say, I’m going to have to rush right out a nd get me some of those Shaun White window curtains at Target. There are 237 Shaun White items on Target’s web site. Well, good for him. I would have made the same deal even though at some level I hated to see it happen. But I wouldn’t have minded if they’d not done the curtains.
 
Kohl’s has revenues of almost $19 billion generated from over 1,100 stores plus their web site.
 
Reaching Everybody, Everywhere, All the Time with Everything
 
I noted after SIA that everybody who was selling hard goods was making apparel, and apparel makers were making hard goods. I recently commented on Quiksilver’s foray into board shorts for NBA teams and suggested that just because a market extension was possible didn’t mean it was a good idea. Referring to the trends in online shopping, I’ve suggested that consumers no longer feel compelled to have a product they want the same day, so one perceived barrier to internet shopping is falling. About 2008 I started to point out that it was going to be tough to get sales increases, and it was years before that I suggested that perhaps a focus on gross margin dollars was appropriate since that was what you paid your bills with. Even earlier than that, I noted that where to sell or not sell your product was something brand managers focused on every day.
 
It’s just interesting how all this is coming together, at least in my mind. In a weak (though slowly improving) economy with cautious consumers and an environment most companies describe as “highly promotional,” many companies are trying to reach new consumers through product extensions that may or may not widen distribution. And it’s funny, because I see this as the hardest kind of economy to do that in. Almost by definition, you’re moving into a space where other brands are stronger than you are.
 
This trend is driven partly by a need to find sales growth somewhere, especially for public companies. It’s facilitated by technology and the internet, improved logistics and information systems, and a sense, I think, that the distribution cat is already out of the bag so what the hell.
 
Just to be clear, product extensions and distribution expansion aren’t by definition bad. Nike can sell some product at Costco without crippling their brand. Think about what Sanuk did. I expect to see Nixon do some interesting stuff once Billabong’s deal to sell half of Nixon closes and I think they will succeed because of how Nixon is already positioned with their customers.
 
These Days, What is “Positioning?”
 
If you ask me what “we” should do about this, I’d say, “nothing.” It is, as usual, up to individual companies and brands. The first question in the everybody, everything, everywhere all the time chaos is, “Has positioning changed and is it still meaningful.”
 
I’ve thought about that a bunch, which is why this article was actually started before Christmas but is just being finished. I hope it’s being finished. I’ll know in a couple of paragraphs.
 
The tools you use to build your market position have changed in ways we all know. But the concept is still valid and maybe more valid than ever. You build and defend your market position by doing what you do well and communicating that to your customers.
 
When I wrote about companies in snowboarding pushing into apparel from hard goods and hard goods from apparel, I suggested that companies that didn’t do that might find themselves with an advantage. I want to expand on that a little.
 
Maybe effective market positioning is now at least partly a matter of doing less. That is, let other companies pursue dubious product extensions. To exaggerate a bit to make the point, let them try to sell everything to everybody everywhere all the time. I wasn’t even born the first time somebody said, “If you think everybody is your customer, nobody is your customer.”
 
That doesn’t mean never do a product extension. But, more than ever, come at it from a solid foundation of knowing who your customer is and why they buy from you. Never go after a new market because, “We need more sales!” And don’t over simplify the analysis by going, “Well, we’re in business X, and all our competitors in business X make product Y, so we should make product Y too.” That ain’t analysis.
 
If you take the time to really understand how customers perceive you and why they buy your products, you won’t ever be tempted by the wrong growth opportunity, and you’ll immediately recognize the good ones when they come along.
 
I guess that at the junction of retail, brands, and the internet what we find is a slightly different way to think about old, still valid concepts.