為什么阿迪達斯最后還是賣了銳步？
Phil Wahba
2020-12-15
圖片來源：GettyImages
有的時候，學會放棄也是一種智慧。
本周一，阿迪達斯正式宣布出售它旗下的銳步（Reebook）鞋業。在1980年代一度輝煌萬分的銳步現已不復當年模樣，阿迪達斯稱這個決定是“公司經過戰略評估后的選擇”。對于這次剝離，業內分析師在四個月前就早有預言。
2005年，為了跟耐克更好地抗衡，阿迪達斯斥資38億美元收購了銳步。當時的銳步在籃球迷中享有悠久信譽，還與美國籃球協會簽訂了授權協議。此外，銳步當年和說唱歌手50 Cent聯名推出的一系列球鞋也引起了一陣流行文化潮。
但銳步近年來卻一直在走下坡路，阿迪達斯的整體情況也不容樂觀，不僅要和耐克這樣的傳統對手對線，還要提防安德瑪（Under Armour）、Lululemon這類后起之秀。2007年，單是銳步一個品牌就可占到阿迪達斯總營收的1/4，但到了今年9月，這一比例已經降至6.9%。
當然，阿迪達斯本線產品的銷量在提升也是造成這種變化的原因之一，但依舊無法與銳步的長年衰退脫離干系。除了在2019年實施的一次短暫改革，銳步這么多年來幾乎一成不變。
幾年前重推的“銳步經典”系列產品并沒有激起大眾的復古情懷，沒能再次幫銳步重塑當年的炫酷光環。屢次聯名合作最終也以失敗告終，并未助其力挽狂瀾。無論是卡迪?B、還是肯德里克?拉馬爾，再有名的說唱歌手都不能再像當年的50 Cent那樣激起浪花。銳步似乎也無心進軍高級定制鞋市場，目前該品牌在波道夫?古德曼百貨公司出售的高端聯名足袋靴定價在1500美元左右。
據去年十月的媒體報道，銳步的出售價可能只有20億美元左右，僅為阿迪達斯15年前收購價格的一半，可見其衰落程度。
剝離銳步不僅能減少阿迪達斯的財務損失，還能使其免于在次要事物上分心。彭博資訊分析師近期指出，出售銳步將“讓阿迪達斯更專注于核心同名品牌，該品牌需要加快發展勢頭，以縮小其與耐克在北美的收入差距”。
雖然阿迪達斯一直在美國發展，但它在北美的地位相對于在其他市場較弱。據歐睿信息咨詢公司數據，耐克和阿迪達斯在西歐(±16%)和中國(±21%)的市場份額幾乎不相上下。但在北美，耐克的規模幾乎是阿迪達斯的三倍。
同樣勇于“放手”的還有美國家居零售巨頭Bed Bath & Beyond，該公司在本周一也宣布要出售8年前收購的243家Cost Plus連鎖超市門店，并表示此舉的目的在于重新把重心挪回核心品牌，故而最終選擇放棄一些多余的商店，同時也會在此期間整頓財務。
Global Data在一份研究報告中指出，和阿迪達斯對于銳步的處理方式一樣，Bed Bath & Beyond賣出這些門店以后，其管理層便可以更專注在原來的核心業務上，也無需再費心管理其他小部門。
The retail landscape is littered with companies mired in fixing brands they bought with the belief that the businesses could be turned around with relative ease—think of Tapestry with Kate Spade, Men’s Wearhouse, and most ill-fated of all, the now bankrupt Ascena buying Ann Taylor. （這些牌子中國讀者都不太熟悉，故省去）But while no one likes to admit defeat, in the case of Adidas, Bed Bath & Beyond—and perhaps others—it makes sense to cut one’s losses and focus on the winning, core brand.
在整個零售領域，有大量公司正和阿迪達斯一樣在為“買買買”的后果買單，所有人在前期總會信誓旦旦地以為收購一個熱門品牌就能助其扭虧為盈，然而結果卻往往事與愿違。盡管鮮有人愿意承認失敗，但阿迪達斯和Bed Bath & Beyond的例子卻又在時刻提醒我們：要想減少虧損，努力做好核心品牌才是王道。（財富中文網）
編譯:陳怡軒
有的時候，學會放棄也是一種智慧。
本周一，阿迪達斯正式宣布出售它旗下的銳步（Reebook）鞋業。在1980年代一度輝煌萬分的銳步現已不復當年模樣，阿迪達斯稱這個決定是“公司經過戰略評估后的選擇”。對于這次剝離，業內分析師在四個月前就早有預言。
2005年，為了跟耐克更好地抗衡，阿迪達斯斥資38億美元收購了銳步。當時的銳步在籃球迷中享有悠久信譽，還與美國籃球協會簽訂了授權協議。此外，銳步當年和說唱歌手50 Cent聯名推出的一系列球鞋也引起了一陣流行文化潮。
但銳步近年來卻一直在走下坡路，阿迪達斯的整體情況也不容樂觀，不僅要和耐克這樣的傳統對手對線，還要提防安德瑪（Under Armour）、Lululemon這類后起之秀。2007年，單是銳步一個品牌就可占到阿迪達斯總營收的1/4，但到了今年9月，這一比例已經降至6.9%。
當然，阿迪達斯本線產品的銷量在提升也是造成這種變化的原因之一，但依舊無法與銳步的長年衰退脫離干系。除了在2019年實施的一次短暫改革，銳步這么多年來幾乎一成不變。
幾年前重推的“銳步經典”系列產品并沒有激起大眾的復古情懷，沒能再次幫銳步重塑當年的炫酷光環。屢次聯名合作最終也以失敗告終，并未助其力挽狂瀾。無論是卡迪?B、還是肯德里克?拉馬爾，再有名的說唱歌手都不能再像當年的50 Cent那樣激起浪花。銳步似乎也無心進軍高級定制鞋市場，目前該品牌在波道夫?古德曼百貨公司出售的高端聯名足袋靴定價在1500美元左右。
據去年十月的媒體報道，銳步的出售價可能只有20億美元左右，僅為阿迪達斯15年前收購價格的一半，可見其衰落程度。
剝離銳步不僅能減少阿迪達斯的財務損失，還能使其免于在次要事物上分心。彭博資訊分析師近期指出，出售銳步將“讓阿迪達斯更專注于核心同名品牌，該品牌需要加快發展勢頭，以縮小其與耐克在北美的收入差距”。
雖然阿迪達斯一直在美國發展，但它在北美的地位相對于在其他市場較弱。據歐睿信息咨詢公司數據，耐克和阿迪達斯在西歐(±16%)和中國(±21%)的市場份額幾乎不相上下。但在北美，耐克的規模幾乎是阿迪達斯的三倍。
同樣勇于“放手”的還有美國家居零售巨頭Bed Bath & Beyond，該公司在本周一也宣布要出售8年前收購的243家Cost Plus連鎖超市門店，并表示此舉的目的在于重新把重心挪回核心品牌，故而最終選擇放棄一些多余的商店，同時也會在此期間整頓財務。
Global Data在一份研究報告中指出，和阿迪達斯對于銳步的處理方式一樣，Bed Bath & Beyond賣出這些門店以后，其管理層便可以更專注在原來的核心業務上，也無需再費心管理其他小部門。
The retail landscape is littered with companies mired in fixing brands they bought with the belief that the businesses could be turned around with relative ease—think of Tapestry with Kate Spade, Men’s Wearhouse, and most ill-fated of all, the now bankrupt Ascena buying Ann Taylor. （這些牌子中國讀者都不太熟悉，故省去）But while no one likes to admit defeat, in the case of Adidas, Bed Bath & Beyond—and perhaps others—it makes sense to cut one’s losses and focus on the winning, core brand.
在整個零售領域，有大量公司正和阿迪達斯一樣在為“買買買”的后果買單，所有人在前期總會信誓旦旦地以為收購一個熱門品牌就能助其扭虧為盈，然而結果卻往往事與愿違。盡管鮮有人愿意承認失敗，但阿迪達斯和Bed Bath & Beyond的例子卻又在時刻提醒我們：要想減少虧損，努力做好核心品牌才是王道。（財富中文網）
編譯:陳怡軒
Sometimes it’s best to just admit that you can’t make something work.
Adidas announced on Monday that it will put its struggling Reebok footwear business up for sale. The decision, which analysts have been expecting for months, is part of the German sportswear company’s assessment of “strategic alternatives” for Reebok, a brand that reached its cultural zenith in the 1980s.
Adidas bought Reebok for $3.8 billion in 2005, hoping it would help the company take on Nike more effectively in the U.S. market, thanks to Reebok’s long-standing credibility with basketball aficionados and its then licensing deal with the National Basketball Association. (Nike won that license from Reebok a few years ago.) What’s more, Reebok’s pop culture cred was bolstered by products like a line of shoes in partnership with rapper 50 Cent.
But Reebok has been on a long decline. And Adidas, facing off not only with longtime rivals like Nike but also up-and-comers like Under Armour and Lululemon Athletica, has struggled to turn that trend around: In 2007, Reebok generated nearly a quarter of Adidas’s overall revenue, but in the first nine months of 2020, that was down to 6.9%.
Some of that percentage drop has stemmed from the namesake Adidas brand’s healthier growth. Still, it’s hard to deny that Reebok has been flailing for too long, fleeting improvements in 2019 aside.
Despite efforts like relaunching Reebok Classics a few years ago, the brand never regained much of its cool aura, retro or otherwise. Collaborations haven’t changed its overall trajectory either: It has worked with big names like Cardi B and Kendrick Lamar in recent years. Nor has a stab at couture: Reebok is currently selling a Maison Margiela Instapump shoe at Bergdorf Goodman for $1,500.
Reflecting the brand’s decline, media reports in October suggested Reebok could fetch around $2 billion, or barely half of what Adidas paid for it 15 years ago.
In addition to cutting financial losses, shedding the brand should reduce distractions for the company. Selling off Reebok will “allow it [Adidas] to focus more on the core namesake brand, which needs to accelerate momentum to tighten its revenue gap with Nike” in North America, analysts with Bloomberg Intelligence recently wrote.
And true enough, while Adidas has been growing stateside, its position in North America is comparatively weaker than it is in other markets. According to Euromonitor, Nike and Adidas are virtually tied in terms of market share in Western Europe (both at about 16%) and in China (21%). But in North America, Nike is nearly three times as big as Adidas.
As if to echo the wisdom of letting go of brands acquired in long-ago ill-advised M&A, Bed Bath & Beyond announced on Monday that it was selling its 243-store Cost Plus World Market chain, which it bought only eight years ago. The decision is part of the company’s aim to refocus on its core brand, an effort that has included ditching excess baggage like its Christmas Tree Shops stores and fixing its finances.
And just as with Adidas and Reebok, the Bed Bath & Beyond deal “will allow management to focus on the core business without getting distracted by smaller divisions,” GlobalData wrote in a research note.
財富中文網所刊載內容之知識產權為財富媒體知識產權有限公司及/或相關權利人專屬所有或持有。未經許可，禁止進行轉載、摘編、復制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
